Talk:1983: Doomsday

Before you start editing, please read the Editorial Guidelines.

Discussion Archives: | Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 |

Former Proposals: | Page 1 | Page 2 |

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

Nuclear Weapons&Energy
Question: should I move this discussion to Nuclear Energy (1983: Doomsday)--Xi&#39;Reney 12:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

An issue I have been thinking about for a long time (since starting my work) but not publicised here explicitely is how nuclear weapons (and energy) should be treated in the ATL. This is IMO an issue of crucial geopolitical importance possibly influencing a lot of the writing done or to be done within the ATL. I kind of hesitated to touch it because of repercussions on existing work. But before this TL reaches the next stage of complexity I wanted to focus this topic. I see several critical aspects overlapping and influencing with a lot of current points. I will name them and add my personal opinion about it. For Oveview reasons I only put te XR instead of full signature behinf my points... I hope for a serious and rational discussion.--Xi&#39;Reney 12:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

if it is decided that the article is to be included yes IMHO I think this be a good adition to the ATL--Owen1983 18:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear Weapons
*Overview of current contents within TL

The main existing contents about Nuclear Weapons consist of the long possible targets-discussion. Nuclear Weapons are only briefly mentioned on the Portal page (the still dead link from the first days of my DD-Work). Also within the Gathering Order of American/NATO military hardware (ANZUS treaty, Benjamin Franklin) and the LoN page are some brief mentions.

In the Israel/Near to Middle East discussion the nukes discussion is more closely detailed.

The TL in the very first version mentioned "only 30%" of the chinese Arsenal had been launched. This is touched upon in the China/s discussion a bit below this. This shows that the topic has mainly been avoided, not been focussed on (correct me). Below I will detail some questions/areas this is touching and which I think should be treated further:

Military/"Action" issues: There is no basic definition/consense on what happens with the non-destroyed/ not used weapons immediately (days, weeks) after Doomsday.Regarding the large chaos, there are of course endless possibilities which might be happening, differing from region to region. Just to name a few, varying on the type of weapons:
 * Remaining Arsenals

A lot of space for fantasy here: Most silos would be destroyed, but some (esp. Siberia) might survive, and someone with the know-how could misuse thir potential. Maybe some governments are able of retaining control over it, using it for their interest based on their intentions...XR
 * Missile silos


 * While it's true that most missiles were launched, it's also true that known launch sites would be major targets - unless I'm totally wrong here, I'd think that silos would be a higher priority than cities. But the idea of independent fiefdoms centered on surviving silos is admittedly a tantalyzing one. In places there might even be ambitious commanders who claim to have working missiles, when in reality the weapons were launched and all they have is an empty spare shell.  Benkarnell
 * Most missile silos would be destroyed; they were just as much targets as the cities and military bases. Even if some survived I doubt you would have nations forming around them.  First, most silos were grouped near others so even if one survived it would be near an irradiated wasteland.  Second, most silos were built in places that were difficult to make a living from.  Third, it takes some high level scientist to keep a nuclear device intact and I doubt there were that many hanging around surviving silos in 1983.  Sure maybe the guy could bluff ignorant survivor communities, but as soon as he runs into one of the larger nation-states he won’t have a chance.  Mitro 14:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The US government surviving should have control over at least most remaining weapons (if there are?) from the bunkers and might secure control all the way through to the transition of military command to the ANZC. Possible ramifications: A heated discussion in the ANZC: Should we keep the nukes or not?... New Zealand banning everything!!, heavy discussions with the ANZC and the several entities in the Old U.S....some vowing not to have them, not to want them. XR
 * US ARSENAL


 * Probably a theoretical discussion - how would the ANZ go aboit reclaiming missiles on the abandoned American mainland? Benkarnell

Espc. Siberia should be able to retain control over some nuclear units and devices, given the local commanders keeping control (as canon). I speculate the generals would be very happy to keep this power for the future. But some Warsaw Pact states might be able to build up their own small arsenal...or see Renegade/local units...XR
 * Soviet Arsenal


 * It seems unlikely that Siberia would be able to communicate with Europe before 2000 or so, and by then the renegade units probably already used any missiles they had. Benkarnell

Very important, but difficult to imagine what happens. depens on command chain and the discussion result...Maybe something used on Taiwan? ...XR
 * Chinese Arsenal


 * Dan mentioned that earlier, I think. We really need a China expert to create the post-DD scenario for China.  That remains the biggest hole in our story.  Benkarnell

I think most of this would be destroyed by DD itself and nearly all survivors insisting on getting rid of them. But some regional things, see below might happen. Giving the common NATO command structure maybe allmWeapons might quickly be put under joint command until the ADC...XR
 * British Arsenal


 * The ADC is new, only founded in 2005 or so. Probably NATO command broke down before it could be effective.  But theremay have been some surviving rump units claimming to be NATO's successor in Europe.


 * French Arsenal

more ambivalent here: Given the French near-independent military structure, especially in nuclear means...I could imagine the french Arsenal being kept under strict control of some military commanders and maybe transferred to stable entities...French Polynesia? A swimming command centre on the Carrier"Charles de Gaulle"? This could be politically interesting backfiring on the ADC etc.XR


 * Renegade/local military units take matters in there own hands after loosing communications with central commands. Mainly armed with tactical, short to midrange nuclear devices, exact political will on their own initiative, become terrorists bombing non-destroyed targets, or maybe using their "power" to secure local influence in communities, regions etc. This is described in a TL I read on alternatehistory.com, but basing on a mislead Cuba Crisis 61/62.. But the force unleashed in 1983 would be much higher and more destructive putting down the probability .XR


 * Global dealing with Nuclear Weapons post-DD

I think this would be a high priority for all reforming nations, international organisations... In Southamerica given no one really had weapons (I know about ambitions, but no arsenal) i think the SAC would be absolutely against all and any Nuclear weapons.

The ANZC might be, as mentioned, a bit more open to keeping the nukes concerning the own security. But as no one in governments wants to have terrorists nuking them I can imagine a international institution being to deal with the Nuclear Arms (at least those out of control) could be founded relatively fast, even predating all other LoN- like tries..even a military contingent with world-wide mandate migt me imaginable. (NOt a global police force, but maybe some multilateral sepcial-ops unit. But do not spin this too far...).

The disposal/destruction of nuclear weapons might be an additional problem. Where to put them? And getting/preserving the know-how for this could be difficult (maybe a joint expert coouncil of Soviet/US/NATO/chinese experts). XR


 * Those expeditions around the world probably looked for nukes. Benkarnell


 * Global Political ramifications

I imagine hot and intense discussions both multilateral and in each state concerning the nuclear weapons problem.

After the first recounctruction years I could see a highly strenghened global "green/ecological" movement totally against any nuclear weapons (and nuclear energy) aiming to collect and destroy all still existing nukes; then absolutely against reconstruction and development of new nuclear weapons. This could be based and mainly driven by huge political forces/movements in New Zealand, the SAC and European survivor states like Celtic Alliance. They probably would get gradually more influence in those states over the years, promoting research in renewable energies, agricltural methods etc. They might swiftly collaborate on international level, trying to instore a new peaceful world order.XR
 * Greens:


 * I've been wanting to work on Hawaii's political parties for a while, but I need to know more about politics in mainstream ANZ. That's a good start.  Benkarnell


 * A further tendency could be (as alrdy described in some US remainders) strenghtened and more extremist religious movements throughout all ajor relogions. More people turning to pastoral lifestyle, fundamental ideologies on the rise, aiming against any technological advances to avoid new "doomsdays". Space for exploration :)XR


 * There will be some sort of radical Catholic movement in urban Costa Rica. I still need to research the details.  Benkarnell


 * A third major political current might be a reformed neo-conservatism mainly in the surviving old powers like ANZC, Siberia and maybe Canada. Driven by nationalistic ideologies, they are pro-keeping nuclear weapons to "secure and protect what we rebuilt". US-rebuilders might be a major force in this movement.XR


 * Makes sense! Possibly related to the nationalist CRUSA.  Benkarnell

The further development of nuclear technologies and their use in civil areas (space exloration, energy etc.) would be higly controversial. But some ambitious dictatorships and Al-Qaifa like organisations might be strongly focused to posess nuclear weapons, either by developing them or aquire old arsenals...This would be major argument for the "Falcons" described above.XR
 * Development/Technologies/Science

maybe a IAEO-like LoN -institution with extended rights and powers could be acting maybe in the not-restabilized regions. Posession or the will to have nukes should be a crucial point for prospective members. (Including the whole "you have em yourselves"-discussion of here)...XR
 * League of Nations

I have stated in Science and techmology 198: Doomsday that nukes were outlawed by the LoN

Nuclear Energy
to be described soon!

France
The Poitevin Republic of has nursed France's nuclear plants along -- I think that France would keep using them, if only to be sure it was energy independent, although I can see a shift in ideas and an increased devotion to wind and wave power, as well. Louisiannan 20:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think your right if countries had resources I think they would use Nuclear Energy bot wind turbines and hydro electric dams may also be used --Owen1983 19:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Owen don't change other people's comments. Mitro 23:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Risk//Extended use
Could we use the world map to make a doomsday version of Risk or something like it? Bob 19:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

[extended the section a bit:]I think basically there is nothing to say against this idea. I would agree and it could be fun. But it might be difficult because large parts of the globe not yet having been described, finally canonized (China etc.).

For my part I toyed with working on a "1983: Doomsday" Civilization IV map/mod a while ago. Based on the original rules before any Expansions (BTS, Warlords etc.), based on the Earth18Civs scenario. I started adding the factions, tried to modify technology etc.... but it's a task nearly as complex as the TL here itself...

But I would love to hear the groups opinion about the TL scenario being used for application beyond the wiki? Do not know if there are copyright issues touched then? Maybe someone can shed some light on that? Thx--Xi&#39;Reney 08:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The risk wouldn't be very fun. Would you really wanted to conquer thousands of kilometers of nuclear wasteland that would have no resources or anything like that? Mr.Xeight 17:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I am all for developing this ATL and this is a great idea --Owen1983 21:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Life After People
I was thinking that you guys should look into this. Despite that we are still around, many areas might develop the way that this show does present, especially smaller towns and cities that are not hit by nuclear weapons. Lahbas 00:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured nomination
I nominated 1983: Doomsday to be a featured alternate history! Check out its nomination: Alternative History:Featured alternate history. Mitro 14:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey don't forget to cast your vote on Doomsday becoming a featured TL. Plus there are other nominations to check out.  Mitro 13:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Woot! 1983: Doomsday is now featured, and I edited the Template:Featured September so that now the TL will appear on the main page.  Feel free to edit the template in case it should be expanded on.  Mitro 01:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Timeline Based off a Possible Nuclear War

 * I thought this might be more informative on the situation following the nuclear war. Though it is set a little farther in time than the timeline itself, it just means that the war would be more devastating that it shows, not less. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuclearwar1.html Lahbas 20:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Just an Idea
i am pretty new to this and after reading about it etc and looking at that map about where the nukes hit, wouldn't the far north of england be pretty intact. the lake district or cumbria wouldn't have been nuked, and before you jump down my throat, it was an idea, and it really would just be villages and small towns which survided. they could possibly form new new england or something.

we are alway glad to have new editors on board your idea sounds very interesting --Owen1983 01:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

We originally had a kingdom in those parts called "Mancunia". I'm sorry to inform you, but it was deleted. The reasons were that the region would be bombed. There is a Kingdom near the Cleveland Rivery Valley. Mr.Xeight 01:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

why would the lake district or cumbria be bombed. it has no strategic value and is quite a distance from any major cities which would have been nuked

GTA
My other passion is the GTA ingame universe which existed in this universe untill DD the ingame universe still exists but with major differences ie Liberty city and Vice City wiped of the map an the State of San Andreas a radioactive wasteland this would create problems sutch as a refugee crisis as for gang violence nost people woul be struggling to survive its feasable that  that the former gangs of san andreas would be cooperating with each other --Owen1983 23:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Do honestly think we'll ratify fictional cities that have never existed when we've shot down proposals about real places that weren't made up for psychopathic game-designers? I don't mean this to be rude, but this TL thrives for reality, ie not making up people, places, cultures, etc. Mr.Xeight 23:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

this is merely hypothetical these cities are based of real live US cities and sorry for being sarcastic but a timeline centering on a nuclear war that never happaned is hardly thriving on reality--Owen1983 01:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * They are fictional cities from another fictional universe. The fact that they are based off real life cities is not a good argument.  Gotham City is based off real American cities but we aren't going to write about Batman surviving Doomsday.  Even alternate history requires a level of plausibility.  Mitro 03:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

How so? The US and its Eastern Friend were quite poised for war, each having thousands of nuclear weapons at thir disposal. Whether the Greek islands would unite into a confederation, or Australia replaces the US and England as the Pinnacle of WASPdom, or a British homeland is procured in South Africa, that might happen, it might not. The fact that we use various statistics and facts gives each of these scenarios plausibility. Video game thugs coming to life and establishing a mob homeand lacks a certain aspect called "reality" IMO. Mr.Xeight 03:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Help me out: what on earth are you all talking about? And where am I?  And who are all you people? Seriously.  I can't decipher any of this.   Benkarnell 04:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

what drugs have you been taking --Owen1983 14:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Can you (or anybody) please explain to me what you're talking about in this section?  Benkarnell 14:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto --Owen1983 15:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. What about it?  Making it "real"?  That sounds pretty crazy to me.  [EDIT] Or are you talking about an "in-universe" version of the video game in DD?  It wouldn't have the same name, of course, but it's possible that someone in the last few years has invented a game with those sorts of dark themes and takes place in a DD world.  Or are you talking about re-tooling the GTA world so that it fits with the events of Doomsday, kind of like the discussion about a Doomsday version of Civilization?  Benkarnell 15:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If we're talking about developing a computer game for the DD Universe, I'm going to have to weigh in and say that computer games in DD, if they exist at all, are going to be on par with Pacman from the mid-1980's. I think they're going to be delayed behind our TL by some 30 years as far as computer tech goes, at least.  The driving force of the computer industry has largely been the United States, and with the US gone...well, there goes a lot of computer innovation. Louisiannan 16:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO technological development would be paused at the point of DD put by 2000 the world pretty much recovered so technology would be still at the point of 1983 so by 2009 you wil see games simuler to wolfenstein 3d --Owen1983 02:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure any computer development would be focused on more useful stuff so if there are any video games at all, they would be no more advanced than the early 80s. I mean afterall, do people really care about pacman in a world where maybe 7/10ths of the planet is radioactive ash? Mr.Xeight 03:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Add to that the smaller market and much smaller pool of programmers & developers. If 2000 tech was at the 1983 level, I'd not expect much progress beyond *our* 1986 or so today. And it might be developing in a slightly different direction. Benkarnell 18:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The Archives
I archived discussions that seemed inactive to me (Page 5). If you (personally) werestill waiting for closure on any of them, feel free to resurrect them. Benkarnell 04:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

transportation
who will it develop will gas diesel be used or some other fuel thaughts anyone --Owen1983 19:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you're trying to say. Now I know in the past I've come off too strong for improper grammar, but it gets difficult to understand you sometimes. Might I suggest Google translate, or maybe writing in your native language? I can speak Greek and tiny amount of Spanish, Dan can speak French and bunch of other languages, Xi'Reney and Ben can speak German, Ed and Fero can speak Spanish, and Karsten can speak Dutch, so I don't think we're lacking in any translators. But as for transportation, maybe horses might be coming back into style at least in places that don't have oil; such as Greece. Mr.Xeight 20:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Owen is british so I doubt translation would achieve anything...as for transportation, horses are indeed a good idea for some places without access to oil. there might also be plans for an electric car.--Marcpasquin 20:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say the Automotive industery would be a good deal smaller without the USA beside i dont think cars would'nt be a priority but trucks would be inportent becuse they could transport goods for trade or humaniterian medical aid --Owen1983 23:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Movies
whith Hollywood/Vinewood gone how will the film industry develop--Owen1983 16:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please try to follow the right format when adding new topics. That being said, Australian and South American movies would come to dominate the world film market but it would be a while after DD before they reach a world wide market.  Mitro 16:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What, no Bollywood? Louisiannan 22:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think India needs to focus more on its mutinous warlords first. Mr.Xeight 00:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"Dust" of USA
In 1983 the US had a population of around 230,000,000 and had maybe thousands of nuclears weapons rain down from the sky onto their hapless soil. How big was the attack? How many people died? How many survived 1983? In order for a natural evolution of the population of the bombed-out remains of the US, how many people should survive and how many people should each splinter-nation have in its boundaries? Am I correct when I say Superior has 6,000,000 citizens? What about the other nations within the former United States? You can count it, I however question it.Fero 04:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Superior has that many citizens specifically because it receives refugees from both the US and Canada. At the same time, abortion has been discouraged in recent years in the Republic, resulting in a nice baby boom. Lahbas 13:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * we have a lot of "countries" in the Canada-USA frontier, some of them are weird, but i think we need a place to the arround 6 millions peoples ive in southwest of USA, Gulf of Mexico states, "black states" (i must not use the N word because is nasty in english), what all that people do where they go, where they stay, what is not destroyed in that zone CSA region need a living town--Fero 02:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's true, though I don't know much about the region. Though, maybe there could be a nation called "Aztlan", named after the mythological Aztec homeland. Or maybe an Apache country. DarthEinstein 02:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * we dont need aztlan, we have not nuked Mexico, i am talking about Texas, Florida an the land betwine them, there is nothing aztec--Fero 03:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, race issues will certainly heat up again in the South, after having only been settled in the last couple of years, and there will likely be “white” and “black” nations dotting the landscape, no one big nation like there is in the North. Texas is a wasteland, having been a major population center, as well as being a supplier of US oil. Florida would suffer a similar fate, but mostly on the southern tip. The Deep South is what would largely escaped unscathed, except for major cities like Birmingham and Atlanta. I’ve largely finished Superior, so I may take up a drafting of the region sometime this week and present a format. Lahbas 03:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Astronauts and Cosmonauts in Orbit during Doomsday

 * Sorry if the title is deceiving. I thought about the Space Programs for a second and wondered if there were any men or women in space when Doomsday occurred. In the case of the United States, no. We could have the shuttle Challenger get heavily damaged during Hurricane Barry, allowing for a launch that would put another Shuttle in space, but you might not want to do that. In the case of Russia, yes. Soyuz T-9 had been launched on June 27th of 1983, paying a visit to the Salyut 7 Space Station, and was due to return until the 23rd of November. Soyuz T-10-1 was launched on Doomsday, but failed to make it to launch due to technical difficulties. I just wonder what it would be like for the Soviet Cosmonauts to watch from up above in space, as their world was engulfed in fire………..then they would have to think of a way to get back. My guess is that they would try and avoid the Soviet Union, and any other areas they could “see” were heavily bombed, and try for Australia. As it was, their capsules were made for landing on land, rather than water, and a large part of Australia is flat rolling grasslands. Jus a tidbit in case people are interested Lahbas 03:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont think ther would try to get back without the russian ground control but I think they mey get in contact with the American Provisional administration --Owen1983 18:26, 24 August 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.

South Asia
How about some new stuff in the Indian Subcontinent. There have been negligible plots involving the Indian Subcontinent. How about a treaty of arms and economic aid between the Union Interim Parliament and the ANZC and the fall of the breakáway nations like Telangana & Gondwana? User_talk:MC_Prank13:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)MC Prank

good idea we could do with more stuff --Owen1983 16:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hold on-I'd like to keep this; as a fictional novel for the DD universe. With JK Rowling either a pile of ash or a 3-eyed cannibal, the world's young adults probably have no huge almost cultlike novel. I'd propose someone maybe from ANZC would write this novel, combining real facts of Britain with this fantastical idea. It gives some variety and a hint of realism for us to delve into fun things like books, or technology. Mr.Xeight 02:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Don’t be so quick to rule out Rowling. My research puts her possibly in Devon County in Southwest England in 1983, and the Celtic Alliance apparently controls that area according to the World Map.  It’s possible that she might have survived and went on to write a novel, though one that would be incredibly influenced by Doomsday.


 * Still I like your idea about fictional works in Doomsday, it really is a good way to get creative with the TL without just focusing on politics. I wonder whether some author might write an alternate history where Doomsday doesn’t happen, from our perspective a double-blind what if.  How would the people of Doomsday envision a world without World War III?  Mitro 13:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure they would be overly-optimistic to make themselves feel better. Maybe it would be a world where the US and NATO and the USSR and Warsaw Pact go into extreme isolation, sealing off the borders (which would present a problem with Berlin, there might need to be a war to save it). If it's written by someone in Australia the world might be filled with no toxin emmitting cars, and each house having a white picket fence and a garden. Of course where the conflict will fit in, I have no idea. As for the FotB novel we can call it "UnderBritain". Well that might be a working title :) Mr.Xeight 15:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of the alternate history novel, it could be written by the Australian alternate history author John Birmingham. He would most likely not be in any of the Australian cities nuked in 1983.  Mitro 15:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Would he still write his other two real-world novels and then our fictional ones? Five novels in his writing career doesn't sound too unrealistic to me. Not that I know much about the creative process of course. Mr.Xeight 15:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I thimk a DD novel is a verygood idea but eny works must reflect the SS POV --Owen1983 14:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Since nothing (yet) has come of them, does anybody mind if I archive this section and the Wildlife one below? Benkarnell 05:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

no doudt the poeple wpild need entertainment and with with Jk Rowling still around and Robert Pullman in australia and I thaught Mitro posted an interesting topic and who would people envision a world without WW3 I think besides adding this article would bring the TL to life --Owen1983 16:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the new article with some in-universe "novels".  Tell me what you think and feel free to add your own.  Mitro 00:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, Owen. Not to nitpick but I brought up most of the sections that don't have to do with nations, it's just others are the ones that ran with them. In this case, I mentioned how far behind DD would be and that there might be no JK Rowling. However it was Mitro who took the time out to create a literature page, and decide the fate of Robert Pullman.
 * Sorry, Mit, I just want some credit :)

Mr.Xeight 02:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Um...who is Robert Pullman? I tried looking him up, but can't find anything on him?  Mitro 03:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I thought that was the name of the Australian AltHistorian who wrote the books on a collapsed US and Australia rising to the occasion to combat the Russians. Sorry, I was too lazy to look his name, and I guess the phrase "when you assume..." comes to mind, sorry. Mr.Xeight 03:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Owen was the first to say "Robert Pullman", I however was talking about John Birmingham.  By the way feel free to add your own fictional novel to the list.  Mitro 03:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) I have some ideas, however they're about topics people (especially people from 14-18) would find interesting. All the vampire stuff is out, as is most things to do with magic. Sports novels seem to be timeless, but I don't anything on the 1983 Sox or Bears, let alone any 1983 teams. This is puzzling, I might go with the alt-hists, those seems to be timeless as well. Mr.Xeight 03:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama
As there was no America, there's no Barack Obama. How about an aboriginal leader of the ANZC in 2009? User_talk:MC_Prank
 * Um...what does Barack Obama have to do with that? Mitro 21:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant to asay, this ATL's parallel to Barack Obama
 * Barack Obama would be dead or struggling for life if he somehow survived the nuking of New York (which I doubt). He was attending Columbia University in New York City.  He graduated in 1983 and stayed in New York working for Business International Corporation until 1986 or 1987 before going to Chicago.


 * So there you go. Louisiannan 14:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Greek Mandates
I know I was given the go ahead for LoN sanctioned Greek mandates on North Africa; but how far do they extend? I'm not dreaming for mandates that extend from the Suez, across Libya, onto Barbary, and into Morrocco (one "R"?), but maybe only Egypt and the area around the Pentapolis. I'd also wonder if they're flags would be Greek inspired. Mr.Xeight 22:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've designed flags for the two nations. The first is of Egypt. The top red stripe of the flag was replaced by the bright blue of the new Saltire. Next I changed the Eagle; his wing feathers are the same blue, as well as the left and right stripes of the crest on his chest. The middle stripe is the same color gold the eagle is drawn from. The scroll the eagle is holding no longer says "The Arab Republic of Egypt" instead I've changed it to "The Kingdom of Egypt" (I'll explain that, but I doubt anyone will read this). As for the Libyan flag, I decided to use the Flag from the Kingdom of Libya, but I change the green stripe to blue. This sort of makes the flags look a bit dreary, maybe someone else has ideas? Maybe a different shade of blue, or avoiding blue altogether? Mr.Xeight 23:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahem. I've read it.  Now, will you explain?  Or do I have to bring out my Wiffle-bat of Justice (+3 Righteousness) and beat you about the head and shoulders?

I have a map of what I propose the colony of Libya might encompass. I've decided that only the Egyptian Mandate will be ruled by the Confederation as a whole; the Kingdom of Libya will be owned by the Moreans. Think of it as the Congo Colony in its early stages, formerly being owned by the King of Blegium, not the whole nation. Mr.Xeight 02:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would they not colonize the central region? Remember that you've got Hadley cells pushing up from the Equator up to (I'm thinking) the 60 latitudes, which means that the whole of the Sahara will be seeing increased wetness. Louisiannan 21:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to get too greedy in terms of land so I only decided for the Jebel Akhdar Valley and Cyrene, and the heavy pop. area of Tripoli. However if the group agrees that's not too much of a land grab, I'm okay with it. Mr.Xeight 22:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's obviously a land-grab in any form, and I'm sure that when the Libyans get their legs under them in the next twenty years or so, the Greeks are going to have a fight -- that is, if they can't incorporate the locals into their government and thus gain some semblance of legitimacy with the locals. It's all about the spin.  The Greeks need a good PR agent, right about now. Louisiannan 13:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well an insider on the colonization plot might tell you there are Greek enclaves for the purpose of having safe havens to go back to when teams of searches get back from their oil-quest. A PR might say the Greeks are doing this for their good will, saving these poor Arab souls from the horrendous horrors of Israel. With the collapse of fascism since the foundation of the Confederation, I can safely assume the Libyan Arabs have the same rights as Greeks; they're given no more aid than any other Greek state that needs it, and now they can finally immigrate to Greece if they decided Libya is not the safest place to make money and raise a family. Mr.Xeight 18:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This map should probably go hand in hand with a brief history of Liby, post-Doomsday. What did Gadhafi do in the aftermath?  Did the Libyan state completely disintegrate?  That would probably have to happen, if Greece was able to colonize it.  Remember: Greece was bombed; Libya, probably not (except, possibly, by Israel).  Benkarnell 04:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Bo Arthur is right-unity between the different peoples in undeniably unrealistic. So I propose a new story... I was thinking that when Akrotiri and Dhekelia lost contact with England, they put the bases under martial law, and decided for the good of the island to take over the whole of Cyprus and do the same. Their plan was to make division between the native Greeks and non-native Turks even worse. However, with a 3-way war on the island; odds are the Greeks would win. So right around the late '80s I propose conscripts from the Dodecanese and Hellenic Republic (the Cretan exile government, not the official nation of Greece) help the Cypriots defeat the Turks and British once and for all. Any survivors of the war might find themselves on the former British bases, which could be turned into concentration camps and/or prisons. Mr.Xeight 18:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I had no real problems with an eventually unified Cyprus, after perhaps a period of fighting. With British forces there to act as heavily armed mediators, they really hold the balance of power and could (1) mediate the coflict, or (2) side with the Greeks.  The biggest problem with Cyprus now seems to be that it may have been a nuclear target.  Benkarnell 12:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I was added a new nuked map File:1983nuked2.PNG, with 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, nuked and Berlin too, if you like we can change her name to the classic File:1983Nukes.png --Fero 23:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

How many times do we have to tell you the British military bases in Cyprus were SPARED, they were not bombed, so let it go damnit! Stay away from my field of work, I don't want any of your opinions. Mr.Xeight 01:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, are we positive about that? Are we sure Cyprus was not hit?  Mitro 02:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I warned the group in some thread that if Cyprus were to be bombed; that would blow all my work to hell. No one objected and since then that's how it will stay. Fero is just being a jackass because he knows I despise him. Maybe the Soviets didn't have enough time to bomb the city before they were bombed or something, either way; all my work will be ruined. Mr.Xeight 02:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the guidance systems of the nuke targeting Cyprus malfunctioned, landed in the Black Sea or something. Or something like that, I don't know how nukes work. DarthEinstein 02:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Thanks, Darth. Anyone mind if I add that to Cyprus' page? Mr.Xeight 03:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Darth: That would set a dangerous precedent. While it may be likely that there would be some malfunctions, we don't have the information to make a good educated guess about where that would be.  Furthermore it would allow people to carve out nations from areas that would logically have been nuked using the argument "Hey it malfunctioned too, why can't I have my way".  I think its best to assume Worst Case Scenario.
 * Mr.X: Correct me if I'm wrong but the necessity of Cyprus was important for the Unity League (which is obsolete), but not for the Confederation of Greece so the fate of Cyprus could change without affecting your current work. It might actually be probable that the bases were hit and though no one said anything before...well man I admit we can't get to every topic and I apologize for missing it if it happened after I became active.  I still think we should really look at whether Cyprus would be targeted and I would also ask that you stop with the personal attacks against Fero.  I'm not asking you to like him but we should all try to be civil.  Mitro 03:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * How large and important are those Cyprus bases? I knew about them but have been assuming they were not targets - though I admit I know nothing about them other than they're there and they are British territory.  Benkarnell 12:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus is too small to withstand 2 military bases being bombed, no Greek, Turk, or Brit would survive. The bases I read are practicly empty, nothing has happened there since the Suez Crisis. They take up 3% of the island's area. Mr.Xeight 14:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, my point is that it had never occurred to me that those bases might have ben USSR or Warsaw Pact targets, but now on second thought it seems at least somewhat likely - they re rather in the middle of everything down there in Cyprus. My question is: were they really "practically" empty in 1983?  Were they nothing more than colonial-era holdovers that nobody really cared about, or were they really worth the Russians' while to launch missiles at?
 * Since your concept for the Greek survivors has moved beyond the idea of Greco-Turkish cooperation, I think that the Confederation idea could still work if Cyprus goes down. The Delians in the Aegean could be instrumental in evacuating Cypriot survivors in such a scenario.  Benkarnell 17:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Though I'm rather-upset at the proposal, if it would be a target for the USSR, then we may need to see. I was thinking maybe instead Turkish or Greek terrorists could simply bomb the bases instead. I think we need to delve in this more. Mr.Xeight 19:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My comment:


 * 1st: I also see the danger of a "malfunctioning ICBM" being used as a universal plot device... I have to admit I already did it to legitimate the survival of the Nimitz Battle Group a while ago...("apparently malfunctioning ICMS") and will rethink that.

I honestly do not believe the USSR wants to spare an ICBM on those minor bases (compared to so many strategic targets in Continental Europe. If I were Soviet Commander I would guess my Black Sea Fleet or an airborne division can take care of Cyprus at a later time, after the capitals of the NATO-allies Turkey and Greece been obliterated. I could even imagine Cyprus being intentionally NOT nuked to ahve some base of operation to secure the Eastern Mediterranean, Levante and Dardanel strait, access to the Black Sea. This would outweigh the strategical significance of the two bases. BTW, they do not have any sufficient port facilities for larger NATO battleships, so marine importance can not be so high. Open for all objections, but I would guess we can keep Cyprus not being nuked, keeping the general work of Mr.Xeight.--Xi&#39;Reney 21:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2nd: Military tactics discussions, The, Sovereign Base Areas (SBA) of Akrotiri und Dekelia...together some 230sqkm... after some research saying these bases only having some SAR-helicopters, a few recon aircraft, one RAF airbase, and 1500 soldiers...today


 * i back, and okey 7000 military british society of Cyprus was not nuked, but can we agree they was attacked in some way for soviet forces in the Mediterranean region?, maybe hardly attacked--Fero 00:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Such as a naval attack? Or perhaps conventional bombing (ie not nukes)? Though, if its not nuked, I doubt the Soviets would send anything, what with imminent total destruction. Turkey might invade though. DarthEinstein 01:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking communists in the Levant could sail over under the USSR's permission. The Greeks, British, and Turks who aren't commmunist would defend it; though not working together. Yeah I have no problem with a seige or lesser bombings. Mr.Xeight 02:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

For sake of argument (I really am not held up about Cyprus) the Soviet Union would have thousands of nukes to use against NATO. Even factoring in all of the capitols and major cities, plus important military bases, you would still have a lot of ammo left for other targets. Mitro 12:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

They would have thousands of nukes to use, true. But one point is the formula how many nukes are used on which target. because we always have to keep in mind that it is not 1 warhead=1target. Some very important things would be attacked with multiple warheads. Why? to a) cover a wide area, b)to ensure a target is definitely taken out (US ICBM launch sites etc.) due to high security measures, to prevent malfunctions in the weapons. And the strategical importance of Cyprus related to european NATO targes (tactical weapon depots) and the canonized attack on China not that high, I suppose. I'd love to see the original USSR plans where to bomb first, but I can not imagine they not being classified :) --Xi&#39;Reney 21:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, it's been over a month since any new material has been added to Cyprus. X8, can we all assume that this is on hiatus?  I'm sure you'd get back to Cyprus eventually, but there's certainly no urgency to do it, and in the meantime this is taking up a huge amount of space on the talk page.  Benkarnell 05:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

China or Chinas
just to start The Population of China’s Provinces Compared with countries population. i am Fero good loock--201.255.54.35 06:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt there would be a united China, but a Third East Turkestan Republic is a possibility. Mitro 12:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way I mentioned this on some other page but I think that Tibet would grab the chance to form an independant state. DarthEinstein 13:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Before we get further into this I want to point out something that has bothered me from the beginning about this timeline. Why was China nuked in the first place? I know that relations between China and the Soviets were pretty bad in the 1980s, but I don't think it was so bad that they would nuke each other. It doesn't make any since to me. If the Russians are so freaked out about the ICBMs that (they think) are about to slam into there country, I doubt they would risk getting hit with more by attacking another nuclear power unprovoked.

Now I think I can accept it getting nuked but only if there is a really go explanation for this. Otherwise I think it would be more realistic to have China survive doomsday. Maybe not as a great power like OTL, but as unstable state barley heeled together. I know it might be a major change, but I can't see much sense in how its set up right now.--ShutUpNavi 21:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Call me crazy; but America could be looking out for itself in this situation. Nukings across the world could bring these 2 communist nations together; or at least in the paranoid minds the men who have the keys to the "eject nuke" button. I don't actually know the real name for said button, so don't laugh at me too hard :) Mr.Xeight 22:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To be reasonable i think China was nuked by USA, not by URSS, that way should be in the timeline; a accept a new free tibet, or try to free; and i say China is a 1/5 of OTL world populaion today and in 1983 too, we must talk about them, time to take a desition, they are dead, live? in China, in the west, in the south, in the moon? --Fero 00:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In 1987, the US Department of Defense came up with projected paths that Soviet armed forces would use in case of World War III. Their maps not only showed invasions of Europe, the Middle East and Alaska, but also showed a Soviet invasion of China through Manchuria and Xinjiang.  My guess is the DoD analysts thought that the Sino-Soviet split was severe enough that if the USSR ever started WWIII they would attack the Chinese as well because they thought the Chinese might stab them in the back.  As a side note the guys who made the film Red Dawn thought so as well, and I do believe they had some retired generals help with the story, though not a great persuasive source IMO.  Just some stuff to add to the discussion.  Mitro 14:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Was it established the nukes dropped on China were American? Who's to say those nukes didn't say "Made in Moscow"? Mr.Xeight 19:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Mitro explained why the USSR was likely to attack China. They were getting on far worse with the Chinese than the US was, I believe.  MItro, why was the USSR thought to be planning attacks in the Middle East?  Do you know any likely targets?  That would certainly help us get started on that region - our work so far has been us sitting around going, "What?  Israel... Gulf War... Arafat... what?"  Benkarnell 21:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it was to get control of the oil there and deny it to the west. Here is the link where I found the info: http://techconex.com/tcblog/2008/04/05/mapping-world-war-iii-soviet-global-invasion-routes/ Mitro 14:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, it was the Soviets who nuked China. The Sino-Soviet split, was more severe and it had started much before than any of you can think. You fellas dont know how much the USSR helped India in the minor 1962 Sino-Indian Border Conflict, which was overshadowed by the Cuban Missile Crisis.


 * Well, one can expect a return to the warlord era in China, with a rather high population for the world, low for China (about 200-300 Million). Taiwan will likely have invaded the mainland at some strategic locations that have not been nuked, and established itself as the successor of the PRC in the eyes of ANZC. At the same time, various “nations”, made up of dictators, republics, etc., fight for supremacy, with nuclear combat still occurring due to loose nuclear stockpiles unused by the PRC during Doomsday. A major issue though is the status of Hong Kong, as I am not completely certain it would be hit by a nuclear weapon, but at the same time, it could. If not, it would be severely affected by fallout from the Chinese interior, and either would seek aid from ANZC or Taiwan. Macau would suffer in a similar situation, though the Portuguese would likely be overthrown after trying to maintain control until communication with Portugal could be reinstated. Lahbas 20:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Taiwan because of its relation with the US would probably be attacked (hence why Ben removed the original reference to a Taiwan state on the updated world map). I would also think Hong Kong as a British possession would also be targetted.  Mitro 20:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, a major question is if any of the Chinese nuclear weapons were able to make it off of the bases before being hit by Soviet nuclear weapons. There was no way to currently deploy nuclear weapons other than through strategic bomber aircraft, and even then, there would be a question if they would be deployed solely against either the Soviet Union, or also aimed at Formosa, and other countries. If anything, Taipei and Kaohsiung are the only cities I can imagine being hit (which would likely be enough), but that is only if the Chinese Air force is able to get off the ground, and make it through the Republic of China’s Air defenses. Therefore, that is the pivotal point we must decide upon; whether the Chinese Air Force was able to deploy its nuclear weapon in the field, before being destroyed by a Soviet First Strike? My answer is no. Lahbas 13:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

East Turkestan
I have been thinking of a Third East Turkestan Republic being created out of the former Xinjiang following a civil war between the factions there. Mitro 17:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

1983DD hasnt goe into the fate of China so create the article and propose it I dont see any reason why it should not be nominated --Owen1983 17:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Confederation of North America(And Other American Remnant States)
Going with the idea of a loose confederation of small nations in the New England area, I am trying to find areas suitable for other “county states” similar to Aroostook. In the case of Vermont, the area around Essex, Orleans, and Caledonia counties seem to be the best bet, as Burlington would be hit by a nuclear weapon due to the Air Guard being stationed there. In New Hampshire, Coos, Grafton, and Carroll counties seem fine. Much of the States of Vermont and New Hampshire are untouched, but fallout from Massachusetts would severely affect anything south of these locations. The nuclear attacks at Burlington would not be of as massive a yield, but enough to destroy the city. A survivors settlement in Quebec other than Saguenay could exist, south of the St. Lawrence River, while another exists in former Ontario. These “states” would form a loose confederation, which is similar to the current OAS, along with Saguenay. Canada would not have membership, because of a situation reminiscent of the Turkish-Greek conflict over Cyprus, and Saguenay’s veto of Canada entering the Confederation. Lahbas 02:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since we already have a, can we get a new name for the nation for form's sake? How about something that is historically connected to the region, like the New England Confederation?  Mitro 20:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

IMNO when describing this region we should pick a name that is connected with the region I don't have any objections to the name Mitro suggested --Owen1983 18:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Area
Since this area is being explored right now, I though it made sense to gather the discussions under one heading. DarthEinstein 19:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've looked around, I think I've got a list of nations in the region so far: DarthEinstein 19:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Superior and Thunder Bay (Proposal)
 * Aroostook (Proposal)
 * Republic of Lincoln (Proposal)
 * Canada
 * Saguenay

Fascist Ottawa
More or less a hiccup that came out of nowhere. Basically, it is the area around the ruins of Ottawa, and Ottawa itself, under the control of a Canadian Captain known as Giraud Leppe. I did not go heavily into the details, as I wanted to determine what you guys thought about it, but it has unofficially become an integral part of my timeline, as the only other human government known by the citizen’s of Superior to existence throughout the 90’s. All the info on the Ottawa is in the Republic of Superior article. Lahbas 14:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottawa would be a horrible place to build a nation-state. Living out of nuked city may be good for raiders and scavengers, but as a capitol?  There are probably smaller, but self-sufficient and intact, cities around the area in western Ontario that would be more plausible. Why not Thunder Bay or Sandly Lake?  The Ottawa peninsula area would just be unviable for nation-state building.  Mitro 01:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I like the idea of Thunder Bay being used as your state's center. It would better explain how Superior took so long to be contacted despite how close Ottawa is too  and . Mitro 01:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, but that would mean I would have the expedition to the West find nothing but refugees. I’ll just expand the expeditions to include one that scans the coasts along the Great Lakes, as it should find it if that since they will likely send out a boat of their own to meet the expedition. Also, it helps with the minor problem of population regarding Ottawa. Lahbas 02:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Lincoln
More of an idea, and all the info is currently within the Republic of Superior. Basically, it is a recently installed government in the ruins of former Chicago. Though it had been destroyed by nuclear weapons, refugees eventually traveled back into the area for shelter from rogue elements in the countryside. Eventually, several mobs formed among the refugees, who had been fighting over resources, both inside and outside of the city. The Republic of Superior eventually restored order in 1999, establishing the Republic in 2001. Lahbas 21:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't it be a part of superior, if superior established it? Louisiannan 22:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm generally against the idea of reestablishing civilization in the nuked ruins of cities. Why build there when you have perfectly good farmland and small, self-sufficient towns to rebuild civilization?  Also Chicago will be hit by more then just one bomb, and don't forget the steel mills near Gary.  Mitro 22:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't Gary already in the stage of a mere shadow of itself in the 80s? Or would the Russians simply overlook that fact, as they have 40,000 nukes at their disposal? Mr.Xeight 23:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I’m relisting Aroostook as a proposal. Due to Lahbas’ research, the Loring Air Force Base located in Aroostook County, Maine, would probably be hit by a Soviet nuke. Because of that the article may need to be rewritten to reflect this change. Mitro 13:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well hopefully that can be done quickly, I want to integrate the info into the Canada page soon, and the mentioned referendum on whether to join Canada is in two days! unless we change the date. DarthEinstein 20:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Middle East
I'd actually propose that instead of the Middle East getting nuked by East or West, I'd suggest that they nuked themselves into oblivion, so that most of the Levant is a slag-heap.

I'd like to say that as far as Libya and Tunisia is concerned they're "countries that time forgot."

And Mr. Xeight and I are working up Egypt as I type this. Louisiannan 21:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Specifically, who nuked whom? Israel was the only Middle Eastern country to actually have nuclear weapons, and it's safe to assume they attacked somebody.  Iran and Iraq certainly had chemical WMDs and were busily using them against one another, and possibly their neighbors.  I agree that a regional plan is probably needed for the Mideast, as opposed to our normal country-by-country process.  Benkarnell 15:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, here’s what I had in mind for what I wrote on my Middle East pages.

With most of Turkey blown up, the Kurds in the southeast manage to establish an independent Kurdistan without much resistance. Wanting to reunite with the rest of the Kurdish populated areas they join in the Iran-Iraq war (which in this timeline is still called the gulf war) on Iran’s side. Although reluctant because of its own Kurdish population, Iran decides to help them in exchange for dropping its claims on Iranian Kurdistan. Iraq eventually collapses because of the now 2 front war, as well as lack of foreign support from the US and Soviet Union. Saddam becomes unpopular because of his use of Scorched Earth tactics in Iraq and is eventually overthrown by an extremist Shia dictator. Like OTL Iraq decides to invade and annex Kuwait, but with none to stop them they soon invade Saudi Arabia and capture the oil fields there. I haven’t worked out what happens from here, but I would imagine things would go south from here and that another war would soon break out.

But this was just my idea of what could happen. Fell free to change what ever you need to with it, because I won’t be working on these pages for awhile.--ShutUpNavi 22:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a good beginning, I think. Chemical weapons were probably used more indisriminately, right?  And what about that Assyria place?  What is that?  Benkarnell 22:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If I may; I have another problem to add to this mix. We both have pages on Kurdistan and an Assyrian Republic. The problem; the areas they respectably claim are exactly the same. Plus, I don't the Shi'a dictator of Iraq would last long. Mr.Xeight 01:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ayatollah Khomeini planned on expanding Radical Islam across the Middle East. Any alliance with Kurdistan would be short-lived. At the same time, Iran would have more likely absorbed Iraq than allow its continued independence. From there, it would have marched on Kuwait and the Arabian states. The result would be a devastating war between the Fascist governments of the Arab World, against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Israel would finally find itself in an uneasy peace with its neighbors. At the same time, they could easily launch a nuclear attack upon the Iranians, either if asked by the Arabs, or if the Iranians get too close for comfort. Lahbas 03:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

When exactly would Israel launch its nuclear attacks against his neighors? Also how about a new article for the attack: ? Mitro 15:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's likely that Israel is just going to nuke its neighbors right away (i.e. the first few years post DD). Here's a more plassable version I had in mind. With time I would imagine Israel would be severally weakened after DD from lack of forging aid as well as fighting constant wars with its neighbors. As Hellerick put it earlier "OTL's Israel is not a self-sufficient country, it's fed by the United States and the Jewish diaspora. No civilized country can survive a perpetual war on its own."

After a while perhaps the Arabs see this as a chance to finish off Israel and start another Arab-Israeli war. This time they nearly succeed until Israel uses its nukes. While this saves the Jews for the time being, it causes them to be seen as a mass murdering state by the rest of the world. This would give the Greeks/LON/anyone else the perfect opportunity to intervene in the Middle East and take over the countries there.

Again feel free to use as much or as little of my idea as you like.--ShutUpNavi 17:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Just my two cents: nuked cities aside (if any), The bottom half of the Middle East would probably stay largely intact politically (possibly realignment?). Going from ideas above, an independent Kurdish nation, and Iran winning a war against Iraq would probably leave Iraq in a mess. Northern Iraq joins Kurdistan, Eastern Iraq gets annexed or puppet'ed with its Shia population to Iran, and the rest including Baghdad ends up much like how Iraq is now in 2009; civil conflict. As for Israel randomly nuking countries, unlikely unless attacked first and probably more of a tactical military use rather than aiming at cities; with Iraq, Egypt and Syria fending for themselves that is the main anti-Israel body of the 20th century removed. If Israel survives, it might jump at the chance to extend its borders as far as possible, including full control of the Palestinian Territories, and any land that has water sources and chances for irrigation. And depending on how right wing you want to go, kick or kill all the Arabs out. Its unlikely Iran and Israel would goto war, they are surprisingly chummy despite the retoric both back then and now, and would be too busy dealing with their own areas of influence to bother each other. Mikebloke 00:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

//
I figured I would bring this up because Yugoslavia (or what became of it) is going to have a large impact on the countries left in Southern Europe. Being a leading member of the Non-Aligned Movement it’s unlikely to be nuked, but all of its blown up neighbors are sure to cause trouble. There are a lot of things that could have happened here. Instead of trying to map out what happens to it all at once, let’s start from the immediate effects of the disaster and work ourselves from there. I just wrote down what the likely effects of the fallout would be as well as the government’s response. Lets try to figure out what happens from here.--ShutUpNavi 16:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * added this to the proposals...I feel general okey about it... MR.Xeight, this is yours?? --Xi&#39;Reney 10:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * -Hello. No, actually, mine. Read through Doomsday and loved it, and though a Yugoslavia successor state could be a good thing to add (could be good if combined with the already existing stub for Yugoslavia Proper). If you find it worthy, I'll do some more edit. Cheers mate --Azazel voland 15:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I put Yugoslavia and the SSU together as one, feel it being more appropriate. Should be more productive than having two parallel discussions. Yugoslavia could be quite complex, given the ethnical conflicts and atrocities...with repercussions on surrounding states... Sicily, Alpine Confed, Greece... --Xi&#39;Reney 17:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Given that the ethnic tensions first escalated during the Croatian Spring in 1971, which caused massive unrest in Croatia, asking for larger autonomy, and the issues with Kosovo at the time, the situation was resolved by the new Constitution in 1974 which grated almost state-within-state rights for the 6 republics and 2 provinces. With the death of Tito, situation was again resolved implementing rotational presidency from each of the republics. Doomsday would probably cause massive secession at first, however, being that all the surrounding countries surviving population would probably flock into the country, the differences would have been overcome in the attempt to preserve the country from "outsiders". Isolation and focus on self-preservation seem like the appropriate answer.--Azazel voland 19:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic tensions in the Balkans run too high. The Muslim Bosniaks and any Muslim Albanian refugees would no doubt be targets for the Orthodox Serbs and Skopians. The Catholic Croats would equally be in conflict with both groups so after Yugoslavia (which has already been claimed by someone) there would no doubt be a mosaic of nations in the former Yugoslavia just as there was in our world. Plus radiation coming from Thessaloniki, Skopje, and Sophia would destroy the outer rim of Yugoslavia. The refugees that gave Hell to the Yugoslavians post-DD would also be a problem. I'm suspicious of a giant union of Southern Slavs. Mr.Xeight 03:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mr.Xeight. Good points. However, during the ages, South Slavic nations have always been able to unite in times of need (especially when a foreign enemy is at the gates) and immediately overcome all differences if there is nothing else to do. In this particular situation, given that the "enemy" is radiation and refugees, their main concern would be closing the borders down. The ethnic torn in teh 90s could not have succeeded without foreign back up to some of the countries. Croatia and Slovenia had support from Germany and Austria, while Bosnians had the support of the US and the Arab countries. Without them in the picture, the funding, support and logistics, Yugoslavia would most probably survive the Fall of Communism. In the late 70s, to quote wikipedia, "The JNA (Yugoslav National/Peoples Army) enjoyed an international reputation as a powerful, well-equipped, and well trained force." It had 620,000 active military personnel and 3,200,000 reservists. With that kind of power, the borders could have been closed and order maintained. One of the reasons for the dissolution of Yugoslavia OTL was that the army did not create a coup in 1991, and thus prevented the wars that followed. JNA was always viewed as the "Liberation Army" and serving in it was considered a thing of honour in the 60s, 70s and the 80s (any young male that did not serve the regular year, was generally considered as not worthy...and could even have difficulty finding someone to marry him :)). With the military taking control of the nation, shutting down the borders immediately after Doomsday, and moving into non-radiated territories (Sofia and Thessaloniki would not pose that much of a problem due to the geographical landscape. Serbia and Bulgaria are separated by a range of 2500+ meter mountains, as are Macedonia and Greece. Slovenia would probably get affected as would Zagorje in Croatia, and 95% of the Adriatic coast. Perhaps, the only coastal area that would escape that fate would be the Bay of Boka Kotorska in Montenegro, due to its peculiar position.)Now, refugees, that would pose a serious problem, that is true, and those that got into the country would most likely be put in camps (as a notion, Yugoslavia did already successfully close it's borders in 1948 during the Inform-bureau crisis and implemented martial law. My only concern is that the country would need a very capable general to take control but be benevolent and patriotic at the same time. I estimate at least 2 - 3 million refugees from the surrounding countries. But, with most of the army surviving, that could be overcome. A military dictatorship would have saved the country at first, them also being responsible for food distribution and peace keeping. Also, Yugoslavia had it's own oil rigs in South Banat, that, in peace times, provided fuel only for military usage (so that the army would not depend on foreign import). That would sustain military mobility and better the control over the country. In my opinion, this is a plausible scenario.--Azazel voland 07:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess I was wrong. I am however opposed to "With amazing amount of luck, most of the harvested land in the province of Vojvodina and East Slavonia did not get affected by the radioactive dust". There is no luck in this TL, I've tried it with an iffy nuke not hitting Cyprus, it's been tried to save Britain, it's been tried to save Germany, and it's been tried to save West Virginia, only the second of my examples was deemed fair enough to pass to QSS. I would however appreciate if you asked before you drag the CoG into the mix. There is no love lost between the Greeks and Slavs of Yugoslavia, even Doomsday can't change that. As caretaker of the CoG I am opposed to any such alliance between the two nations. As such, I'd appreciate it if you pull the blurbs on Greece having open discussions with each other, free border crossings, a Joint Defense Agreement, and a trade union. Mr.Xeight 15:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this conversations sort of petered out without a conclusion, so I propose that the article be promoted once we address Mr. X's requests. Otherwise it looks like a sound addition. 70.26.54.188 13:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The Doomsday Library Project
I would like to adopt your idea Louis and propose the initiation of a worldwide knowledge salvation and preservation project. I imagine this being initiated by the LoN and carried out (mainly) by the WCRB ARK Agency for Recovery of Knowledge.

The center of gravity would be to establish a neo-Alexandrian Library where as much knowledge from the world in any form - documents, paper, papyrus, discs, tapes, books, construction plans etc. Salvage teams (WCRB) would be sent out with the recon missions to collect erything they got in their hands. A special LoN division, internationally authorized and multilaterally composed, would oversee the archives and administer the records. I could imagine all scientifical fields being included in the project. Goals of the Agency might be the recovery of technologies of global importantance, salvation of cultural, historical heritage, help in building future technologies against radiation poisoning etc. In general I would suppose a positive reaction of these plans proposed by the King of Tonga& the French Polynesian High Commissioner or similar... Problems I see: This can be a long discussion, so I open it hereby.. thanks for ideas Will come up with a proposal article soon!--Xi&#39;Reney 22:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * military knowledge and treating this? -->nuclear know-how?
 * a possible refusal of governments sharing thing they know...american technology by ANZC, USSR tech by FSSR etc...
 * the parallel tries of dictators (Sicily, South Africa) or general nations to be the first...

I can pledge the monks of Agion Oros to share their religious and Byzantine literature. Mr.Xeight 00:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Virginian Empire (1983: Doomsday)
the virginian empire consists of the Formor US states of Georgia Virginia both Alabama this article is a proposal
 * Wait -- So Virginia, Georgia and Alabama? Do you maybe mean the Carolinas?  And I hate to say this, but after living in the South, I don't know how well/functional they'd be at surviving the years since DD. Louisiannan 20:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the article the nation covers West Virginia/Kentucky. I'm not sure what Owen is talking about.  Mitro 20:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Owen, are you taking crazy pills again? Louisiannan 22:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I will have to check but if the state capitals were nuked and with the US in anerchy i thing what leadership ther is would have formed ta rudementiry government --Owen1983 12:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Does any one bother to check the Nuked Places map anymore? the states of West Virginia and Kentucky are completely unscathed by nuclear impact. Maybe evn a bit of northern Tennessee. --Yankovic270 00:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Who said the map was perfect? Mr.Xeight 00:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I just don't believe that the Soviet Union would waste a perfectly good A-Bomb on every single state capital when there were much much more tantalizing targets. And I didn't say the map was perfect, I basically said it is close enough. When it was adjusted it was only changed to include bases on Cyprus that I didn't know existed on the hit list. It still left the Kentucky/West Virginia area clear. And is this you tying to find anyway to erase my country from the map even before it is included? I'm not trying to imply anything. And Owen? Can you please use something on your computer called SPELLCHECK. --Yankovic270 01:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Virginia even today contains a large part of the military installations; Naval, Air, Land, and Coast. Even if the capital were not hit, the resulting chaos would prevent the government from being able to maintain control. Lahbas 00:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

does anyone both to read the description anymore? It's WEST Virginia not regular Virginia.Totally devoid of A-bomb Inpact. Sorry 'bout the spellcheck crack.--Yankovic270 04:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My mistake, anyway, while there are not major military installations there, the Svoiet Union might try to take out the coal-mining regions within the state, which produced most of the power used throughout that region. Even today we largely depend upon West Virginia for our energy needs, or at least the industry in the Midwest and lower Northeast. At the same time, you have to remember that the Soviet Union had just under 40,000 nuclear weapons at their disposal in 1983. They won't mind hitting some what could be considered minor strategic targets if it could keep the enemy down. If a nuclear strike were made on the coal mines, I can only begin to imagine the enviromental disaster that would result. Lahbas 05:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

MIGHT. The key word is MIGHT. It is not a sure target like Washington, New York or London which were certainly much much much higher up on the list than a resource that might have noone alive to use it. If it even made it on The List to begin with. The Nuke map may not be perfect, but it shows that nothing, and I mean NOTHING was targeted within the area of my nation. And can anyone take a look at it. I tried to make it more realistic for its local situation. And my half-assed Neues Deutschland, before it was made obsolete, was stripped of its "Proposal" tag and I am actually starting to work on this one. Keep sending tips on how to improve it and I will try to make these changes reality. I just want the Republic as it is now called (I can't change top title for the life of me) to get into the timeline now that my New Germany went down the tubes. I need more up-to-date advice for it. --Yankovic270 04:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The history needs some flushing out, a new flag is necessary and some new sections could be added. Mitro 19:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I though about this for a while and came up with some sort of draft set of proposals for South(ern) Africa. This proposal is done assuming that only New Britain, and the existence of the RZA is canon and everything else is open for discussion. The specific history of the latter, being a stub, is altered substantially by the proposal. I though I micht post this here as well, since it does evolve changes to a canon nation and deals with an entire region, and therefore cannot be executed without prior discussion. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * premise one: After Doomsday ans loss of contact with the Northern Hemisphere, authority in South Africa largely collapses

Eastern South Africa

 * To the east of the Cape province the Bantustans assume sovereignty over their own lands and try to establish control over the areas inhabited by their respective tribe. Lesotho and Swaziland do likewise.
 * Ciskei and Transkei ultimately merge to form KwaXhosa.
 * QwaQwa is absorbed by Lesotho.
 * KwaNgwane is absorbed by Swaziland.
 * The city of Johannesburg finds itself running out of supplies and ends up in a dire situation. The fighting is ceased when an uncomfortable marriage de raison is agreed on by ANC insurgents and those government troops remaining to keep the city as a whole from starving. Johannesburg militia join the Bantustans in search for arable lands and instantly clash with them.
 * The troops of the Bantustans beat the Johannesburgers decisively and start beleaguering the city.
 * After Johannesburg falls the rulers of the former Bantustans can't agree on who is to rule the city and ultimately accept a proposal by one of the 'stans' to place the city under joint control, which leads to the formation of the "Azanian League": a loose confederation of many of the Bantustans + Lesotho and Swaziland.
 * When Robert Mugabe managed to get parts of Rhodesia under his effective control, his Republic of Zimbabwe joins the League too.
 * The Xhosa and Zulu remain outside of this union. The latter ends up in a civil war between royalist and Inkatha party republicans.
 * As the Anglo-Africans leave the area for New Britain, the only convenient lingua franca comes to be Afrikaans, much to the annoyance of local rulers. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Western South Africa

 * After the attacks the only part of South Africa to remain under effective government control is the almost wholly Europeanised part round Cape Town. As the central government finally collapsed, local authorities assume control of the area. In the end this lead to a state dominated by the Afrikaans speaking coloured population, which I suppose will be quietly emancipated in quite liberal Cape Town. Note: coloured denotes mixed race in South Africa. In many ways these people are closely related to the Afrikaners. They even voted mostly for the Afrikaner National Party in the 1994 election, possibly forming the majority of the party's electorate, presumable because they feared being ruled by the black majority even more than being ruled by their Afrikaner relatives. By that logic I'm letting them stay loyal to the regime. Ultimately they may even start styling themselves "Afrikaners" as well. The still functioning government starts referring to itself as the "RZA". An actual declaration of independence never takes place.
 * The Griqua community, centred round Griquatown in the arid north eastern part of the Cape Province, assume sovereignty over their area again.
 * A rather radical Afrikaner group does likewise with the western part of the modern province of the northern Cape. Forming the "Volksstaat". Popularly known by the name of its capital: the Bitterfontein Republic.
 * Meanwhile in South West Africa, a group of ethnic German leaders meet in Windhoek and proclaim that now that South Africa no longer exists its mandate on the country has also expired and South West Africa is terra nullius. After having ensured themselves of the support of the local Afrikaners and Basters they declare themselves sovereign over the whole of the area. They however only manage to take control of the southern and central part of the country. Neither is the new country, which has started using the name and flag of the former German colony in the area, exclusively a German state. One may well claim that the region is effectively more under the control of the more numerous Afrikaners than under that of the Germans.
 * Triggered by the establishment of the Azanian League, leaders of the western states form a Union of their own. Calling it the "New Union of South Africa". Memberstates are the RZA, Bitterfontein, Griqualand and the DSWA. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm supportive of this new history, though I would like to see it in its final form. Mitro 02:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, presuming nobody objects against me interpreting the fact that this proposal didn't lead to a rush of comments as tacit approval for its general outline, I'll get to that as soon as I can. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I interpret your lack of response as agreement with me! (sorry -- had a flash of Eddie Izzard's "Sexie" stand-up routine. Heh.  It looks reasonable, as do most proposals you come up with Karsten. Louisiannan 14:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your sporadic Izzard references bring joy to every forum you frequent!
 * Karsten, I think this is pretty sound, and it even manages to incorporate some older, tentative material (including ideas I put on the map purely out of my own head). The one thing is the RZA: it is definitely established that ANZC and South American troops set it up in the 2000s.  That's from one of the earliest versions of the Timeline; either XiReney wrote it before any of us joined, or else it was part of the raw material written even before he picked it up.  Either way, the occupation of Cape Town and establishment of the RZA is definitely canon.  The current  page mostly consists of canon material, with only a few bits of my own thrown in that are tentative, as far as I'm concerned.
 * As I see it, for them to even consider doing this in Africa (of all places!), life in Cape Town must have been increadibly, incredibly bad. So bad that there was popular support for invading a faraway continent.  The real reason, of course, was to conduct a kind of military/political experiment as a run-up to the creation of the League of Nations.  But there had to be something to prompt it.  Maybe a different town in the Cape Province could follow that history and be a Coloured-dominated, liberalizing sort of place?  Benkarnell 04:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I'd never heard of Eddie Izzard before... and that I much regret that now that I do. Should seriously watch some more of this guy, genious! Thanks ;). To get back to the Cape, how does this sound to you?: I wasn't aware of the fact that the intervention had been included since it's very start, but I guess this could work to it to the basic outline. Feel free to criticise as much as you like though. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * After the attacks the only part of South Africa to remain under effective government control is the almost wholly Europeanised part round Cape Town. As the central government finally collapsed, local authorities assume control of the area.
 * To keep the support of the Coloured population, which was vital in beating down those riots that did occur in the Western Cape region, some Coloureds are appointed to government posts. The most important posts however remain in the hands of the Afrikaners.
 * One of the leaders of a Coloured militia created after Doomsday (I'm calling him Hendrikus van der Merwe for now, just to ease referring to him) grows dissatisfied by the relatively marginal posts given to his kinsfolk (or perhaps better said: grows dissatisfied by the fact that he wasn't among those appointed...) starts revolting against the Cape Town authorities and becomes an uncontrollable menace, ultimately taking over control over the state.
 * Van der Merwe streamlines the Cape into an authoritarian regime and starts some kind of personality cult.
 * Van der Merwe initially targets the Islamic Cape Malay population as a scapegoat for all problems of the RZA.
 * Ultimately, when this loses some of its effect, Van der Merwe also starts targeting another group that is somehow different from the norm: the local Anglophone population. Going as far as passing an edict that fully outlaws usage of the English language and forces people to use Afrikaans.
 * With Anglo-Saxons being actively persecuted, I guess international interference is only an inch away, regardless of the fact that it's happening in Africa...
 * After the interference the first truly free elections of the Cape are held.
 * The new democratic government chooses to remain a member of the New Union of South Africa. Which, being by far its largest member, the RZA has come to dominate.


 * I think that's a very strong storyline, and the totalitarian dictatorship is more or less what I had imagined for the region. I also like that it avoids the "All Afrikaaners are teh evil" trap, which the tentative plot line in my head did not do.  It opens the place up to some potentially fascinating stories.  I also love the idea of the personality cult!  I suspect there are a lot of those in the world of DD waiting to be discovered. My suggestions:


 * "RZA" should be the name only of the provisional government set up by the outsiders. The name itself has such a temporary, occupied-country feel to it - it's not even a name, just three letters that officially don't even stand for anything.  Van der Merwe's state as far as I'm concerned could be anything from "The Grand Imperial Realm of All Africa" to the "Free People's Democratic Republic of the Cape" to "Cape Town", but RZA is I think the name of the provisional government.  For a full history,  could be moved to.
 * I know you said it was a temporary filler, but I'd suggest finding an actual Coloured radical to stand in for Van der Merwe.
 * The persecutions of Malays and Anglos is a very nice touch. I'd suggest moving it earlier in time so it can become part of the story of the founding of New Britain.  The 2006 invasion doesn't have to be an immediate response to new persecution; its purpose can well be to stop ongoing, long term oppression.  (Remembering once again that both the Aussies and the Latins had ulterior motives.)
 * Depending on the makeup of the New Union, Cape Town may not be its largest member, especially if certain minority groups were "encouraged" to flee the area. KwaXhosa and Bophuthatswana could potentially be huge.
 * Benkarnell 17:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I only chose "Van der Merwe" because it rolls of the tongue nicely when pronounced with a thick Afrikaans accent, a real person would indeed be a lot better. From the seventies onward the Coloureds had their own parliamentary representation in South Africa, I guess our "Van der Merwe" would likely be among those people if he half-expected to attain a government position. Having a list and some bio's of the members of their House of Representatives would be great. I'm currently browsing the PiCarta central Dutch academic catalogue to see if I can find something, but sadly enough all potentially interesting hits thus far are not available in Groningen.
 * Moving the persecutions earlier in time seems like a great idea to me.
 * In my outline the New Union only consist of the western states of what used to be South Africa. Since all other states of the Union are in semi-arid zones, I guess the Cape would dominate a Union composed as such. Bophuthatswana would be a member of the Azanian League and KwaXhosa is documented as being independent from both blocs. But of course nothing is set in stone yet. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I might have just found a suitable Van der Merwe: Peter Marais. Was a member of the Coloured parliament during the eighties for a relatively minor party and subsequently went on to hold seat in parliament for more than half a dozen parties, leaving a trail of destruction behind him. Opportunist if ever there was one so it seems. And incompetent enough to be in dire need of the described scapegoats. But nevertheless apparently quite popular among the Coloureds. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

New Germany 2.0
No I am not going to let the idea die. I am going to put it in a more appropriate place. In the only continent with real large German populations other than Europe. South America. In the northern part of Argentina. If there is a better location for it, please let me know. I did not put New Germany there in the first place because it seemed that evrything to be done in South America had been done. --Yankovic270 23:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing is, Yankovic270, whether you let it die or not, what you're suggesting is NOT FEASIBLE for this timeline. Period. Louisiannan 23:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I could see a movement within Argentina, Paraguay, and Brazil seeking to set up a New Germany, but the SAC is quite powerful, I doubt they'd recognize such a state beyong an autonomous prefecture. There are Germans in SW Africa, and have set up 1-2 states there, maybe you might want to try your luck in the Darke Continent (Adding unnecessary letters; the pinnacle of archaic sounding speeche). Mr.Xeight 02:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the South American nations were _the_ _strongest_ countries to come out of Doomsday, possibly excepting Australia. Notice that every single South American country is still there, except the few that merged together.  A German-Argentine state is less likely than a German-USA one, which is to say not at all.  You'd have better luck in SW Africa.  But even there, the best you'd hope for is a majority-African state where German is the lingua franca, not the neo-neo-imperialist nonsense that was written before.  Benkarnell 04:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This already exists as Neues Deutschland (1983: Doomsday) adding it again would be pointless --Owen1983 11:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, I am German... and yet I agree that all described attempts for "New Germany" so far do not have any serious chance of getting beyond proposal (or fiction status) within DD, not with me . And you seem to forget that with the Alpine Confederation (1983: Doomsday) we still have a rather powerful and significant German-speakers-dominated country in the heart of Europe!! ( please spare me the discussions about Austrians and Swiss respectively their languages being "GErman" or not).

To keep it realistic, my guess would be the recognition of the Alpines as the forebearer of "German" culture...Esp. as it reigns several former German areas along the Rhine and houses a load of refugees!! MAYBE I can imagine kind of a small, "neo-german", probably neo-nazism led movement existing on the far right within the AlpineConfed, possibly even among some overseas countries (Africa, MAYBE South America)... possibly in Italy some neo-fascist, I don't know...

And maybe one or several warlords on old German territory (if anyone survives) might be claiming to be the new "Fuehrer"...but not to be taken serious and short lived.

Given the high popularity of the Anti-war-movement in Germany at that time (Pershing II etc.) I would not believe any popularity among possible survivors of using the chance to establish a "NEw GErmany"...

No I mentioned my ideas for a possible survival of Germany or some derivate...feel free to jump on them...

to summarize: Germany on September 26th, 1983: is a divided country at the frontline of two powerful and atomically armed blocs. Hundreds of thousands of troops are stationed and facing each other. Dozens, possibly more nukes (tactical, strategical) are detonated on German territory, and around it. It is in the center of the nuclear stormcloud and the following fallout coming from every direction...who in the world (apart from mentioned brain-dead warlords) would imagine reinstating this country???

To make it clear(even if I know that you, Yankovich, does not meant it in this way!!): THIS TL is not intended to be a haven for Neo-German-Imperial // NAZI thoughts in any form !!!

Remark to any admins: If this is getting to emotional or violating the political/historical neutrality in the Wiki, tell me.Xi&#39;Reney 19:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think Yankovic said anything even remotely Nazi, but there was a definite "19th century imperialist" feel to the original Arabia idea. But I had completely forgotten about the Alpines.  A German speaking coutnry already exists, and they're a fairly important power to boot!  If I remember, a good chunk of Baden-Württemburg is in Alpine territory, correct?  Since the A.C. is a confederation, that implies that local areas have lots of self government.  Some work could be done on the Germany portion of the A.C. and its attempts to become the successor to old Germany, within the protection of the Confederation.  Yankovic?  What do you think?  Benkarnell 16:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, when I said "state", I meant a province/periphery, not a sovereign nation, like Illinois, Chihuahua, Boetia, etc. Maybe a province within Argentina called "La Tierra de los rubios" might exists. Mr.Xeight 21:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless there are any objections, I think we can consider this proposal rejected. Mitro 23:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

New Chicago
For months now, I've had tons of ideas about my native Chicago. Now, I've finally decided to write them down, something I'll admit I was too embarrassed to do before.

My idea is that there were survivors to the Chicago bombing, though not necessarily from the actual city. They band together and go north, becoming nomadic much like our ancestors did when populating the globe. Maybe within years they come upon the Northwoods of Wisconsin. I'd like to see them build a city there, naming it "New Chicago". What I propose is a city not much bigger than O'Hare Airport, complete with felled trees for a fortress wall, hollowed-out vehicles being used for carriages, possibly purchasing cattle and various plnt seeds to become more self-sufficient. Eventually, as whatever bullets they were able to find or bring with them whittle down to nothing, they'd have to revert to creating bows, spears, etc; or maybe just buying some from the natives of the Northwoods. Mr.Xeight 16:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I was reading this proposal and you have put a lot of thaught into it I woul like to look at this page when you create it it looks great --Owen1983 23:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Could this idea somehow be harmonized with the Republic of Lincoln, also in the planning stages? I'm asking because they seem to be in the same area.DarthEinstein 20:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

They're actually not. My idea is hidden somewhere in the Chippewa River Valley of NE Wisconsin. Lincoln is an idea that didn't quite make it past the drawing board I believe, I could be wrong one that one though. Mr.Xeight 23:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay then, that's fine. (Though don't you mean NW Wisconsin?) I look forward to reading the page! DarthEinstein 00:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)