Talk:1983: Doomsday

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


 * Former Proposal Page 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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


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


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

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

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


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

New bermudian Flag Poll
This poll has finished and Option 2 has won the vote (as can be seen by the updated main page) New Flag of Bermuda Option One Option Two Option Three Option Four Option Five


 * Although I don't see a reason to remove the Union Jack at all. It's not like they're threatened with forcible inclusion into some resurgent British Empire. --Louisiannan 19:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it'd be better to remove the Union Jack as; it's a new time for the Bermudians. They've lost all contact with Britain and America. Doomsday has occurred and there's a new Monarch. Seeing as it's a new time I think the Bermudians kind of deserve a new flag. Just my take on it anyhow.--Gamb1993 07:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Woot, my favorite won! Mitro 19:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to update
As we graduate new articles, don't forget to add the new history to Timeline (1983: Doomsday), World Country Profiles (1983: Doomsday) and any other article in the TL that needs to be updated with the new info. Mitro 01:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Anon edits
For some unknown reason, several different ip addresses have attempted to delete this line from the page:


 * May 17, 2009 Celtic Alliance
 * [[Image:Celtic alliance flag.gif|25px]] Presidential Commission to designate new National Anthem in time for World Cup...the new band Runrigs song Protect and Survive is favoured. Discussions are also taking place for a global version of the Eurovision Song Contest.

Can anyone think of a reason why this is happening? Mitro 17:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Just kidding
but how many time to 1983: Doomsday become by her own a independent wikia, for the direction i think doomsday1983.wikia.com--Fero 03:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We're coming dangerously close to taking over this one! I've thought about this before, and I think that moving to a new place would be a good way to ensure that nobody new would ever contribute.  This site gives us a lot of visibility.  So until the owners kick us out, I think it's a good place to be.  Benkarnell
 * Ben is right. I would estimate that we have almost a dozen contributors, ranging from actives who are on this talk page every day chiming in to those who just stick to editing one or two articles.  Maybe one day we will reach a self-sustaining population of contributors but that may be a few years.  Mitro 13:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have thought a few times about that issue... but I believe that for the time being leaving it at althisttory.wikia.com is the only reasonable way. It is an outgrowth and the No. 1 timeline for the whole wikia (regarding popularity). So we are bonded to a fruitful and good community of contributors. and as Ben and Mitro said any try to establish a separate wikia for this would be equal to dig a grave for our beloved 1983: Dommsday timeline. --Xi&#39;Reney 21:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

QSS & QAA
Take a look, folks: QSS and QAA, a nice additional support to the Editorial Guidelines. Louisiannan 23:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Embassies and Religion
I'm exhausted right now, so please excuse any spelling and/or grammar errors. Are there embassies in the 1983 Doomsday? My next question is; what exactly is going on with religion? The major sites of Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Buddhism have been destroyed. I can really only speak for the Eastern Orthodox Church for examples; but how exactly did the world restore the Patriarchs, Popes, Lamas, etc. I suppose an emergency synod could be called amongst any surviving Bishops, or even priests. Though how many Bishops, who they would pick, and at what time this historic Synod would be in I have no idea. As for everyone else; ideas anyone? I also realized that areas like Australia and New Zealand that have a huge Greek population might actually save Orthodoxy. I don't know where the seat of the Patriarch would be. Mr.Xeight 04:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You touched a large issue Xeight:)...Embassies I'd guess still exist somehow, at least in the capitals not nuked. But I do not think they fare better then any other institutions after nuclear fallout, famine and diseases. Not sure if many can manage to evac their embassadors or recall them. In General I think the diplomatic network will have to be rebuilt from the ground. And many new nations emerging will have had further consequences in the years 1983 to mid-90ties at least. We already have a lot of diplomatic elements in the TL... maybe the worldwide WCRB bases may be recognized as sth. like diplomatic corpse bases as in many regions they might be the only reliable more or less neutral institution. I propose the WCRB Platforms of Diplomacy (1983: Doomsday) or sth. similar serving as regional neutral contact bases and diplomatic missions as a worldwide infrastructure of embassies and consulates will be hard to maintain for most nations. A League of Nations Resolution might be legitimating this.--93.212.13.3 07:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, even without heads, these religions aren't just going to disappear. Islam is still around, obviously, as we've mentioned several Muslim states (Indonesia for example). Catholicism might survive in the Celtic Union, or at least the Irish part. Eventually the world religions would reorganise, get popes and Lamas, etc. Similarly for embassies. Say we have an Australian Embassy in Dublin. Obviouly they can't contact their government or represent a government they can't assure the existance of, so either the ambassadors would die of cancer, starvation, etc or integrate into society. But eventually embassadies would reorganise, though I think that each country would send ambassadors rather than just have the WRCB bases. DarthEinstein 12:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A bigger question might be: what effects did the Doomsday event have on theology and religious thought? A lot of changes no doubt happened as a response to it.  Benkarnell

Post WW II in Europe the percentages of religious people plummeted; we can all only imagine how much more it's gone down here. Of course people could be drawn closer to religion after such shocking events, my guess is that Xi'Reney might have to decide on if Atheism in 1983DD either sky-rocketed or is less than in our world. Mr.Xeight 13:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would depend on the country, ie how much it was hit, how important religion was before Doomsday, etc. DarthEinstein 13:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * i think Catholic church elect a independent Pope by South America where people is live and almost of them are catholict, add of catholicnot nuclear attack to south america like a god bendition, how care about 2 million of catholic in Irelan when we have 130 millions in Brazil, same numbers in all latin america Roman Catholicism by country Archivo:Mapamundi católico (2005).png --Fero 15:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fero -- I think that's a bit away from the norm, though. I don't think that the Catholics there would just up and decide to elect a pope, especially since the rules of the Catholic Church state that all the cardinals have to gather to elect a new pope.  And do we know where JPII was at that time?  Otherwise, you've got an Anti-Pope for South America. --Louisiannan 16:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia, John Paul II travelled a lot, and in 1983, the last place he visited was Austria, from Sept 10 to 13. I think its likely that he was in Europe at the time of Doomsday. See Pope John Paul II. DarthEinstein 16:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd sort of like expect an epic scale schism resulting from the lack of communication possibilities immediately post-DD, with self-proclaimed popes arising all over the world. Guess the only place where a pope would actually be able to gather a substantial following would indeed be South America. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There may be some anti-popes, but in the long run the church would be reunited under a pope chosen by the cardinals. The Roman Catholic church does have procedures in place in case contact is lost with Rome (for example 3 bishops can create other bishops thus allowing for more priests).  I would give it a year or two and then someone is going to call a conclave to choose a new pope, that is assuming that John Paul II is actually dead.  I also could see a "New Rome" being set up in South America because of its Catholic population and being missed by Doomsday.  Mitro 17:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * i was choise Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brasília to a new vatican city base and her Leadership


 * Archbishops of Brasília (Roman rite)
 * Archbishop João Bráz de Aviz (2004.01.28 – present)
 * Cardinal José Freire Falcão (1984.02.15 – 2004.01.28)
 * Archbishop José Newton de Almeida Baptista (1966.10.11 – 1984.02.15) like heavy popular new pope--Fero 17:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that if the South American (and Mexican and possibly Central American) cardinals were to elect a poe, he would be the de facto pontiff even if some Catholics elsewhere disapproved. The facts are that South America likely contains an overwhelming majority of the world's Catholics now.  If there was a Brasilian coclave in the late 80s or so, my bet would be that the rest of worldwide Catholicism has either accepted it, or else formed small splinter groups dedicated to the memory of Rome, saying that true Popes may only be elected there.  Probably the split was deep and painful - it actually reminds me of the Sunnis and Shi'ites.  But whatever the changes to Catholicism, they must have been profound.  The church is so deeply tied to that place - it is the Roman Catholic Church, after all, and that name is more than just a nice tradition.  It makes me think of the Jews after they lost Jerusalem, or the Greek Orthodox when they lost Constantinople.  Benkarnell
 * "the Jews after they lost Jerusalem, or the Greek Orthodox when they lost Constantinople", totally agree, and even more so, since Rome is now totally destroyed. Perhaps to keep the tradition alive they would make a city called New Rome (or Portuguese/Spanish equivalent) or else rename a city to New Rome. DarthEinstein 22:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't rule out the rest of the world's participation in the election of a new pope. 1/4 of Australia's population is Catholic.  Whether that would have a major impact on the selection I don't know but it is something to consider.  Also don't forget the prestige that goes with having the Holy Father in your country.  We may see a lot of South American nations falling over each other to get "New Rome." Mitro 01:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Australia might actually be the saviour for the Eastern Orthodox Church. Australasia has Archbishops, Bishops, and Priests (who could be invited because Doomsday has the habit of making drastic changes) from many of the Orthodox Churches. Now there is a small (and I stress that) group of Eastern Orthodox people in South America, Asia, Africa, and the survivors of Europe, though they would be so small they would most likely be Kenothronists, with the clergy and laity remembering the Patriarchs with honor. Of course with Greece taking mandateship over North Africa, great strides could be made in Africa, maybe in some missionaries making it into Sub-Saharan Africa. Mr.Xeight 17:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

#3
1983: Doomsday is now #3 on the editor's pick. Mitro 15:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hurrah! By the way, who picks it anyway? DarthEinstein 15:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong but I think it involves how often it is edited. Hence, editors choice.  Mitro 01:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Where were you? Where are you?
My own birth did not occur until almost exactly a year after Doomsday was averted in Our Timeline. It's safe to assume that my parents, in suburban Chicago, would not have survived to create me or anyone similar to me in This ATL. But some of you are older than I am. Where would you have been on Doomsday? Are you a likely survivor? Where are you living now? It's a fair thing to include in the TL, if you ask me, since we've already tapped so many rather average figures for major roles! Benkarnell 21:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Alas, I was also born after Doomsday and I am double unlucky because my parents lived in the city of Chicago. If they did avoid being turned into radioactive dust, my guess is there likelihood of survival is small.  Kind of depressing to think about, I'd rather they both survive unharmed and lead a group of bad ass refugees across cannibal infested Wisconsin until they set up a homestead in Upper Penninsula Michigan (which might have survived intact).  Mitro 21:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be in Utah, and would likely be a survivor, possibly a veteran of the Spokane War. I definitely wouldn't be a linguist, or do much else of what I've done in my life, that's for sure. Louisiannan 21:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I was not born to 1983, but my parents was (how tha fack i say that in englsih?)in a Romantic friendship in Buenos Aires, that mind they was not died, that is good. (time to diner, i back later)--Fero 01:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't born before Doomsday, so my likelihood of birth would be low. It's safe to say that I don't exist in the timeline, as both my parents were either in an American or Canadian major city. DarthEinstein 01:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

CURRENT ARTICLE PROPOSALS
Please list any and all current article proposals and their discussion here. If the proposals only involves a specific section of the article, please state that. Also remember to use  when reviewing new articles.

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


 * It's coincidentally the same basic design as the flag of, but that's not really a problem, IMO. In OTL there are many flags with designs even more similar - Monaco and Indonesia come to mind, and many others.  Samoa and San Juan were probably not in contact with each other when they adopted their flags, so they'd have no reason to think twice about them.  And Samoa's not even an independent country anymore.  So no problem.  Benkarnell 12:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well damn, when you think you had an original idea you find out how wrong you are. Anyway I'm not that happy with my flag at the moment anyway, I was thinking of maybe using a blue background with a white whale's tail coming out of the water.  Mitro 12:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, but again, since similar flags happen all the time in OTL - and that's with our clear lines of communication - I think that similar flags actually adds to the realism of TTL. But I also think the whale flag sounds neat.  Not nearly enough whale flags in any TL.  Benkarnell 19:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Most particularly, I would like commentary on this map:

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


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


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

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


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

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

Alors What's the vote on the layout I've proposed for France by those who wish to say anything? --Louisiannan 17:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I pretty much accept it, my only concern is the suggested population levels, but I would like to see the articles you plan to write for this map first. Mitro 18:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as the population is the only sticking point, I have no problems writing the articles, I just don't want to put in huge efforts if the whole thing were only to end up rejected, you know? I'll write some up, then and see what y'all think. --Louisiannan 18:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I accept your detailed and well-thouhgt proposals for France and the map is logical! But i would like to know or read what you have in mind for things like international context with the Alpine Confed, Monaco, French Colonies, Pais del Oro, etc. !! --Xi&#39;Reney 21:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This is more-or-less finished. Thoughts? I've put dovetails into the Alpine Confederation, Monaco and (soon) Auvergne. I look forward to your feedback. Louisiannan 18:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I just read it, and it seems fine to me. DarthEinstein 19:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This is more or less done, for now -- just updating to current events. Louisiannan

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m sorry but the UK article is completely implausible. Do you know how many years it would take to dig the tunnels and make them able to support human habitation when there wasn’t a NUCLEAR war? With the radiation poisoning, starvation, disease and brigands roaming the countryside the only idea the surviving British had was to dig underground bunkers? No this article should not be canon as it is. Mitro 14:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My research on the Bermuda article did establish that Prince Andrew likely survived Doomsday since he was serving in the Royal Navy at the time and was most likely somewhere in the Southern Hemisphere. He’d probably be the next King at that point.  Something to consider if we ever decide what to do with these articles.  Mitro 14:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Andrew could end up in Port Elizabeth, where a population of Anglo Africans has gathered from South Africa and Zimbabwe. I'v said for a long time that the idea of Rhodesia would work if it were scaled back.  But Bob has continued to put out ideas of millions of English persons surviving and doing just fine in a stable and organized nation somewhere... which is not going to happen.  Bob, consensus is pretty clear: we're willing to work with your ideas, but you need to adjust them so they fit with the rest of the project.   I'm personally growing a little imatient.  Benkarnell 18:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Almost forgot about these, but we really need to figure theses out. I think our first move should be to delete Ralezia. Its really not necessary. Anyone opposed? Mitro 23:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't ever like the idea of deleting anyone's work. At most tag it as a rejected proposal - if Bob is indeed unwillinng to make any further changes.

North American Union (1983: Doomsday)
Almost forgot to add an explanation for this proposal. Anyway, this nation came out of an attempt to improve the older UAR/New US nation that once haunted the TL. I scaled back the size, dropped some more nukes and added in horse-riding nomads. As you can tell from the history there will eventually be a war between the survivor communities and the Lakota separatists brought on by Lakotah’s dreams of retaking their old territory and the North American Union will be born in the aftermath of the war. I’ve been slow building the history, but right now I am concerned about whether anyone has any objections to what I have been trying to do with the article. Thoughts, concerns? Mitro 13:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Literature
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)

Wildlife
I've also been meaning to ask about technology and wildlife. How many years has our modern world's joys been set back? And what about animal-life throughout the world. Any survivors might actually flourish without humans to interfere. Another sort of thing that might might be; the radioactivity causes them to evolved. Any surviving dogs would no doubt interbreed causing a new species; maybe even breeding with wolves. Problems such as hairloss might result from radiation. Do we have anything on DD wildlife? Mr.Xeight 02:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen anything on DD wildlife, apart from a small thing I wrote on radioactivity affecting Newfoundland's cod fisheries. Mutation is likely; however be aware that most mutations are not beneficial for the organism. As for technology, I think that things like iPods wouldn't exist, but as far as I can tell cell phone technology is already on its way by 1983. DarthEinstein 13:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Confederation of Greece (1983: Doomsday)
With the Unity League being not-so-realistic I've thought of other plans for Greece. Greece would revert back to various city-states such as in the Pre-Roman times. Mr.Xeight 17:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For most of the Aegean Islands I'd like to return to my previous idea of the Delian League. The nation would be a direct democracy with the capital at Ermoúpoli.
 * Corfu would go into isolation (maybe trading w/ Albania in the first few years) & become a self-sufficient Republic. Sicilian & Albanian immigrants mainly chose this island to flee to. A roman catholic church and mosque are there, but Eastern Orthodoxy is by far the leading religion.
 * Cyprus was saved by any sort of nuclear explosions, and is perfectly fine as of '09. The Greeks, Turks, British, & Americans have coexisted relatively fine now, and this was the first nation to give aid to the Greek governments.
 * In Crete we have the provisional Republic of Greece which is a continuation of pre 1983 Greece. Nothing much more to say about them.
 * The Dodecanese Islands became a republic. They have recently set up small colonies on the Turkish coast.
 * The Pelopónnisos did well and surprisingly began a Despotate, with a prominent Greek residing on the island setting up his own dynasty. They tend to try to stay out of other nations' affairs, with the exception of the Greek States.
 * Both the Delian League and Despotate of the Peloponnisos have pooled their efforts together to set up a small farming colony on the ruins of Old Constantinople, which they hope to eventually become an urban city again.
 * Agion Oros (Mount Athos) was saved by storms which blew the nuclear debris and clouds in the opposite direction from where they exist, and they became an entirely self-sufficient Theocracy, though they have allowed refugees to live around the base of the mountain, though they must not interact with the monks.
 * I'd also like to propose under the watchful eye of Cyprus, in the 1990s the nations formed a loose confederacy, which over time gradually tightened.


 * That's a major change to contributions of yours that are more-or-less accepted as canon. Are you sure?  Benkarnell 18:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It has been pointed out in both rude and polite ways it won't exactly work. I mean my dreams of mandates and such can still happen, it's just you'd have 5-6 governments all claiming protection over it. I've looked back at my ideas even I have to admit some of my ideas go off the deep-end. Mr.Xeight 18:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I must agree with Ben that this is a major revision, but I'm glad to see the direction you're taking, and I wouldn't be at all against the gradually tighenting confederation of Greek states, and I wouldn't rule out the possibility of some sort of unity with Cyprus. I think you've captured the feel of 1983: Doomsday's ATL quite well in this proposal.
 * Keep in mind, too that weather patterns are suggested to have changed, so it could be possible that the Sahara may be greening up, if people treat it right...and Greek colonies in the otherwise unclaimed land wouldn't be something I'd argue against. Louisiannan 18:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Greek colonies in the Sahara? What about the African countries claiming those areas, what happened to them?  Mitro 18:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the fact that many of them were barely surviving as is in the 1980s, and given the likelihood of the major centers of government (Cairo, Tunis, etc.) being extinguished in the nuclear exchanges, I don't know that this would be a problem. (IMHO the Middle East and North Africa have had the populated areas turned essentially into radioactive slag-heaps between the Jews and the Arabs duking (or should I say nuking) it out with no International community to stop them.) --Louisiannan 18:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * True, though we have only touched on that lightly. That may be another project coming down the pipe soon.  If I were Israel I would also target the Aswan Dam, think how much damage that would do when a nuclear bomb releases Lake Nasser and floods the Nile Valley. I wonder though if the lake would be large enough in whenever the Israeli-Arab war happens to cause significant damage?  (Birmingham’s “Without Warning” had a similar attack)  Mitro 18:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that Nasser's 132 km3 of water, full, I could see Israel nuking Cairo and other major hubs, then nuking the dam to wash it all out to sea. --Louisiannan 19:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Israel gained nukes in 1979 and have today and estimated 80 nuclear bombs. How many would they have in 1983?  [Edit] Never mind, found a source that puts their arsenal around 12-31 in 1984.  Mitro 19:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think apart from the Peloponnesos, the Greek city States would be strong enough to combat Sicily. Some of the smaller republics as soon as the Italian problem is taken care of would happily honoring the soliders that gave their lives and then go back to regular life. Some nations (such as The Despotate of the Peloponnesos) if given a carrot at the end of stick in the form of mandates would love to invade Italy. Lastly others (Agion Oros) would never even dream of sending any sort of resources other than chaplains.

Colonies in the Sahara is a wonderful idea! Perfect enough to shut up everyone from the Imperialistic Peloponnesians who want land, the Holy Mountain who'd want converts, and everyone else who wants farms for survival. Which part of Western Africa were you thinking of, Bo?

I'd also like to propose I make pages for each of the city-states, as well as a page for he Confederation. Mr.Xeight 18:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, as long as you're sure... I think this sounds really cool. And a lot of the material on the UL fighting Sicily can be salvaged.  Do you have anything to report on what's going on in Turkey in this scenario?  Benkarnell 19:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Depending on the amount of information you create, I don't know that it will be worthwhile -- especially if they're all coming together eventually into New Greece. (I'm just trying to avoid the situation that was given us with Rhodesia-Raleizia-WhatEverTheNameChangedToNext, where it was three pages that essentially could've been ONE.  So, if you're going to have a great deal of information, I say, yes.  If you're going to have barely a page's worth of information (if you use lots of headers, etc.) I would say find a way to combine it down.)
 * 2) I was thinking anywhere from Libya to Sinai, really. Anywhere that could be colonized and supported, essentially.  Why not a recreation of Alexandria where a new library is being built under LoN auspices to gather the disparate knowledge post 1983DD? --Louisiannan 19:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That is one of the best ideas I've heard since Ben's Suez idea, you truly are a 1983DD Visionary :). Taking the coast of Libya and Egypt with the capital of Alexandria for the new Egypt and Berenice for Libya, would you all mind that. Tunisia which would be wrestled from the Sicilians might be a possibility as well. Speaking of Ben's Suez Proposal, could we keep that as well? Mr.Xeight 19:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know about visionary -- but doing alt-hist stuff with Ill Bethisad for 10 years doesn't hurt! I haven't seen the Suez proposal -- link?  And as for the coasts, I do point out that there will be Berbers and such, and so the Sicilians/Greeks will have to contend with them for the land area, but I think that the Greeks may choose to offer the hand of friendship to the Berbers as a "join us and help us improve your lands and get rid of those mean old Sicilians!" kind of treatment, and get better behavior.  At the same time, if you want conflict, come in with the good ol' European, "Hey barbarian, you need civilization!  Have ours!"
 * And as any proposal, make sure you've done your research and get your ground legs first. But I don't see a problem, especially if you get the locals in cooperation (which, if you guarantee them quality water and good food and aren't oppressive (like I get the feel the Sicilians might be), you'll have no problems. Louisiannan 19:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ben's Suez Proposal was archived. It's under the subsection "More Lands for the Hungry UL". I'm definately going to extend a hand of friendsip to the natives and stir more anti-Italian bias, sort of to stir salt in the wounds. As for info, I'm going to have to lookup who was in charge in each of these places and most definately will the monks and missionaries of Agion Oros be setting up a missionary route startign with the natives of N Africa, and maybe even going as far to Sub-Sharan Africa. I also forgot to explain about Turkey. I thought everyone would conveniently forgot about the Peninsula; but a good writer never leaves loose-ends. I'm sure with the advent of their great cities of Constantinople and Ankara burnt to a crisp; the void of power might be taken by a faction much on par with today's Iran and Afghanistan. Conservatives who turned their backs on secularism and diplomacy with the outside world. They want a purely Islamic Fundamentalist, Fascist level IF. Whether they would go communist or capitalist is a problem; both the nations that doomed them were shining examples of such. I'm sure they would also be too busy fighting the Communist Kurds and Assyrian Avengers to notice the tiny colonies set up by the Dodecanese Republic or the joint Greco-Morean colony of New Constantinople which I'm sure would try to take the Asian half of the city located on the Turkish Penninsula.

I was wondering if someone could design a flag for me. I was thinking that the colors of our world's Hellenic Republic would be used, but instead of 9 stripes and a cross, the main part of the flag would be Saint Andrew's Cross (hidden message?). Much like the Confederate Flag had, I was envisioning a gold star in the center of the Cross, with 2 stars in each of the 4 arms of the Cross. This is optional; in between the stars I was thinking a word could be enscribed in Greek. Things like "Unity, Equality, Liberty, Piety" could be between each of the stars. However if makes the flag too busy-looking, kindly disregard any sort of text. Mr.Xeight 22:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced that there would be a strong presence near Constantinople. Also where is New Athens located?  Mitro 00:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

New Athens is located over the ruins of regular Athens. As for Constantinople, I'll let the grou vote on it. Mr.Xeight 01:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to believe that the survivors of Greece would waste money and resources on rebuilding a nuked city. I'm not saying it wouldn't happen eventually, but considering the scale of Doomsday there just has to be more pressing projects that rebuilding one destroyed, radiated city (or two if they are rebuilding Constantinople too).  Mitro 01:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't given a time as to when the cities were rebuilt. Athens was rebuilt as a city for the politicans of the Confederacy to meet at and deo what every Senate does. I'm not saying either of these cities were rebuilt in 1984 with the help of magic, but the advent of the 2nd millennia CE might seem like a significant time to do it. Other than polticians and some archaeologists, there's not much other people. As for Constantinople; Thrace is considered good for farming, and the Moreans are hungry for land and the Greeks want to restore the Republic set it up. Once again it's not as if Constantinople is once again a huge metropolis of 2500 years of history; I'm sure the only people there are farmers and Morean representatives. All in all I envision New Athens and New Constantinople as very small cities, mostly being supported by the other city-states. Mr.Xeight 02:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would remove the new cities from their original foundations. Despite how quickly Hiroshima was rebuilt, the nukes of 1983 will be worse then 1945 and there will be significant health concerns.  Using the suburbs or a nearby small town/city as the core of a new metro would be the best.  Also even if Athens is built as a Washington DC, there will still be a significant support population to support the politicians and themselves so it will be rather large.  Mitro 02:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * just say reconstruction of a nuked city is not easy in 1983, see Milestone nuclear explosions

Flag
Is this what you had in mind? It's kind of neat looking, but there's nothing particularly Greek about it, if you know what I mean. Benkarnell 17:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Greek flag obviously must feature the Greek cross. Truth be told I am not sure why it should be different from the OTL one. But if you want it different, just choose one of the older designs. — Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 08:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No Hellerick, I was not going for the Byzantine Cross. Saint Andrew's cross was referencin (big surprise) St. Andrew, founder of the Eastern Orthodox Church. White and blue are already the colors of Greece, and gold was no stranger in the Byzantine Empire. The "official" successor state to the Hellenic Republic on Crete would already be using our world Greece's flag. Thanks Ben. I here by dub thee "Betsy Ross of the Confederation of Greece". I think we might need to change it to "Benny" though :) Mr.Xeight 15:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If you didn't necessarily want the "Photo-Negative" CSA flag, you could always put the stars on the white fields in clusters of three... Louisiannan 16:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure the Confederate States of America won't mind. Besides the creator of the flag, Venedithiktos Karnellos might have admired the Confederacy :) Mr.Xeight 16:18, 19 June 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)

I was going over what info there is available on Cuba in the TL, and it is not much. Pretty much Santiago and Havana were hit and the Castro brothers are presumed dead. The military and remnants of the Communist government takes control and suggest that everyone should get off the island. Pretty much everything I just said comes straight from the, afterward there is mentions of Cuba being self-sufficient and still stable. My question to you is, what do you think happened to Cuba? Mitro 23:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would assume that at least some of the world leaders would have made it to the nuclear bunkers so even if the capital gets hit, there is the possibility of the leader surviving.--114.73.19.16 20:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * While true, the info on the Castro bros comes from the Timeline itself and I am hesistant to change that. Mitro 12:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a major question about Cuba is Is it still communist? If so, then it would want to cooperate with Siberia. If not, though, it would want to get involved with the other Carribian countries. This is just general stuff, though, I don't know enough about Cuba to get into specifics. DarthEinstein 22:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if it's Communist, it will still work with its neighbors. The need to survive trumps ideology, I think, for both sides.  Benkarnell

okey Spain was nuked, mabe heavly and we have Pais de Oro en nortwester Africa, but i think something survivol in older Spain, cab we create that page? if we have France, Ireland and South Italy, something must be in Iberian peninsule--Fero 00:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, it looks like it wasn't any more heavily nuked than France. If anyone wants to write a proposal page for it that's fine.DarthEinstein 01:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the fact that Pais del Oro is so close to Spain that if there are any survivor communities they would be a part of that nation? I mean on the world map Pais del Oro already claims/controls Spain.  Mitro 12:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have bucked up my ideas a bit and have created this page. Rather than Rhodesia, Raleizia or New Britannia, New Britain is supposed to be the ethnically fair democracy from the beginning.
 * I’m a little concerned about the slash and burn approach you’ve taken to your old articles. This means that a lot of content already established throughout this shared universe will have to be changed, including stuff written for the Timeline and the News Page.  Mumby/Bob, consensus to me seems to says that most people are ok with your original idea for Rhodesia, as long as it was scaled back to make it more plausible.  Is rewriting the entire history from the beginning and renaming the article really the proper course?  Mitro 17:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You may be pleased with a fascistic racist state existing in Africa, but I don't. After I had read what I had written about Rhodesia, I was sickened. How could my mind spawn this hate? How dare I write about the systematic destruction of a race as if it is everyday. The British are already the only nation in the history of the planet to successfully carry out a genocide. I am not about to let it happen again. As an aside, how do you like the flag? Bob 18:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Bob/Mumby: It is not a matter of being “pleased” about a fascist state. I assure you as a descendent of resistance fighters against Nazi occupation I have no love for genocidal dictatorships. This is a “fictional” universe in post-apocalyptic setting.  A nuclear war on this scale will lead people in most targeted nation to do at best morally questionable and at worst downright horrifying things just to survive.  In this world we would see people resorts to all kinds of violence, even cannibalism, just to get enough food to hold off starvation.  There is going to be anarchy on an unprecedented scale as nations collapse because of the strain Doomsday has caused them both directly and indirectly.  Some nations will even abandon people in parts of their territory just because they don’t have enough to give to everyone (you can kind of assume that in the way  came out) and will do their best to keep them away (like the MSP).


 * I find your proposed article to be overly optimistic. South Africa would still be in the midst of apartheid and I don’t find that changing simply because of the arrival of some British refugees.  If anything the survivors of Britain are going to adopt a “British first” policy in an effort to survive.  Furthermore what about the native Africans, white and black alike?  In the midst of the worst catastrophe in human history are they just going to share their limited resources with thousands of refugees who just happened to decide to set up shop there?  According to the TL South Africa is already in anarchy shortly after Doomsday, so I don’t expect an organized response to their arrival.  How else would the British refugees take control if not by force?


 * Bob/Mumby, if you don’t want to write about genocide, then don’t put the British refugees in some former colony where they are a racial/ethnic/etc. minority. You mentioned St. Helena?  Why not put them there?  Mitro 19:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please just call me Bob. The British at this point in time (in 1983) ere inviting people from all over the former Empire to come to Britain. That is what crated the ethnic melting pot Britain is today. In 1983, the British were condemning apartheid and racism in general. What makes you think that they would turn to the actions that they traditionally despise? Also I was thinking that they would still be inviting people from the Empire to come to New Britain resulting in an even greater ethnic mixing. I was also inspired by a news article that I was listening to on Radio 4 this morning. The British were thinking about evacuating the island if it came to nuclear war anyway. Why ever not South Africa, one of its most important white settler colonies. I also factored in various civil wars and the starvation, disease and radiation that the Africans would suffer before the British got there. That would put white people at roughly one third of the poulation which is not by anyones standards a small minority. Bob 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It’s really easy to do the right thing when a nuclear war is not happening. Any nation that attempts to invite large numbers of refugees and support them is going to suffer a huge strain on their resources.  You are having a nation of refugees who have settled in a land none of them are native too inviting other refugees to come live with them.  If I were in charge of feeding all of these refugees in a hostile country, the last thing I would do would be to call for more, it would be a logistical nightmare and people would die because of it.  Furthermore, I’m pretty sure I gave you my reason on why they would do a 180 on apartheid: simple desperation.  Their nation was just destroyed and most don’t know if they will even make it in their new land.  People are going to hoarde and this will breed hate on both sides.


 * You also did not address my point about the natives, why would they even allow this to happen peacefully? The country is already in turmoil and now they have armed refugees carving out a new nation in their sovereign territory.  People are going to be displaced to make room for these new arrivals and they won’t be happy about it especially since they are all foreigners, regardless of their past history.


 * As for important white colonies, why not Ireland? They are right next door and only Belfast got hit and since they are further west they won’t have a high rad count. Canada can also apply, at least the Atlantic provinces, and so can Australia/NZ who according to the TL already have Royal Navy ships that showed up to help there and are doing pretty well.   They are all good spots for the refugees, some even better then South Africa.  Also why does it have to be a former British colony?  If some South American nation is opening its doors wide and promises everyone a home and food, why would the British prefer a chaos-ridden former colony they apparently had a problem with the last few decades?


 * I do agree with you about the British plans to evacuate the island. In fact if you actually read my statements under the collection of South African proposals on this talk page you would see that I specifically said that.  I even had no problem at first with South Africa as the destination, until you began changing it to be overly optimistic.


 * One question: where did you come up with 1/3 of the population? South Africa white’s make up 1/10 of the population OTL.  How many British do you realistically think are going to make it to South Africa?  My best estimate puts it around 200,000 British refugees that could be taken over successfully, but that is optimistic. Mitro 19:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I shall answer easch of your questions in turn. My idea was that the at the time banned ANC invites the British to settle their refugees on the condition that they destroy every last remnant of apartheid. The British considers this and accepts.


 * Your question about resources and hoarding could be easily settled by rationing. This worked in Britain when we were clashing with the evil of Nazi Germany so why not now? There would of course be a black market but I'm sue the government would do everything they could do to stop it.


 * As for other important white colonies, if the British moved to Australia they would be part of the ANZC population. If they went to live in Ireland, they would become Celts. And why would they want to move to South America where Hugo Chavez would eave his arms in the air and claim that this is English imperialism forcing itself on the free nations of South America.


 * You also have to remember that New Britain doesn't take up all of South Africa. They control KwaZulu-Natal, Eastern Cape and Free State. I judged that about half of the populations of these areas would die, mostly blacks before the British got there due to lack of regulation of food leading to the whites shunting enough to themselves to keep themselves alive whilst the blacks starve and die in their millions. When the British get there demographics have altered considerably and it takes years to reverse the damage the whites have done. Eventually population ratios even out at 30% white, 60% black and 10% Asian.


 * I hope this has answered all your questions. Adieu. Bob 20:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to believe that the ANC would invite in the same people who once ruled South Africa, or that the British would accept knowing there is much more peaceful areas they could settle. I would even wager that the blacks can overthrow the white government in this scenario without foreign help.  Even if they do accept British help, why would they name the nation New Britain?  If you are trying to make a state in where everyone is equal then why a name that furthers the assumption that white's are still in control?  Still I like how you now agree that there would be some violence with the arrival of the British.


 * Rationing might work, but comparing it to WWII is a weak argument since Britain's homeland wasn't nuked at the time. What limited resources that would be available in Britain and South Africa in this ATL would mean that even less British refugees would survive the trip then I originally estimated.  I would also seriously recalculate the demographics of your state as the percentages still seem to high for whites.  I do like how you used Prince Andrew as the new king though


 * Hugo Chavez, meanwhile, didn't get any serious political power in OTL until the late 90s. In 1983 he would only be a soldier and I doubt his complaints would matter to most of South America at the time.  Its not unheard of that stable nations will take in refugees during crisis.  Plus any South American nation will benefit from British knowledge and expertise.


 * Based on your comments you really want Britain to survive as a nation and not be absorbed into the population of another, which is fine. I still find that your current setup is too optimistic, but you do seem to be trying to improve it.  I would highly recommend finding these plans we both know exist and read them and see what a British evacuation of the island would entail.  Mitro 20:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mitro, it's not a matter of rationing, nor is it a matter of resettlement -- the changes you propose are very optimistic for this pessimistic ATL. And while you want Britain to survive in some form, I don't know that as it's proposed it would work. Louisiannan 21:13, 24 June 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)

WORLD MAP WORK IN PROGRESS
Alright, i started to work on a proposal for a new world map. As this will be more than just an overhaul but a complete new design this will take some time to have a final version (which means an actual version). A few things concerning this:


 * I would like to take this work in my hand to avoid week-long discussions and dozens of versions being edited from three different persons with different programs, different formats etc.
 * This does not mean I want to dictate anything!!! EACH AND EVERY objection, suggestion, creative idea will be talked about.
 * My ideas is to propose several ideas on designing the map (color key, several amrkings etc.) and let the group decide.

A question: For the time being my idea is to remove the current world map from at least the front page as is it is irritating and far from being actual to the canon.

If this idea is against anyone's feelings tell me.

or if all of you now think: 'Xi is just trying to keep up with the changes and trying to reinstate control over TL'...this is wrong. I just want to keep up 1983: Doomsday as all of you!!!

'''Please sort your remarks! so it is easier to find!! thx --Xi&#39;Reney 07:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)'''

General Opinion

 * Having worked in a similar environment for years, I know this is not a power-grab, but rather the work of a cartographer doing his best. Ill Bethisad has about 3 regular map-makers, but there are a number (Ben included) who make up maps now and again.--Louisiannan 22:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I just started doing this myself yesterday! I guess I'll stop.  I'll let you do the work :-P  Benkarnell 13:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Content/information issues

 * Good idea! I too think this needs to be done. Be sure to include the proper territory of Canada and Saguenay. See Canada Doomsday.png and Saguenay-geo (DD1983).png DarthEinstein 22:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A major recommendation of mine is to only show actually administered territory and not claimed territory. I think showing claimed territory will give off the wrong impression of what the world is like.  For example the current world map shows Canada controlling all of its territory despite the fact its been limited (even before the changes I and Darth have been doing) to the few small provinces along its east coast.  Mitro 00:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Question: should the map depict territory only

or all of it? Or completely different? A definition consensus would be helpful! Because IMO depicting ONLY controlled territory would leave large parts in the nondescribed grey status and lead to irritation...so a fainter colouring, striped illustration if disputed (e.g. currently alaska) is what I would pledge for...--Xi&#39;Reney 08:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) "under effective, functioning control"(administered)
 * 2) "internationally acknowledged" (sovereign territory) or
 * 3) "undisputed control"
 * But having administered and claimed territory the same color would make people think the nation survived better then how it really did, though I would be fine with different shades or stripes. Mitro 13:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also Alaska though isn't just disputed, its split in too. Mitro 13:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Visual/Design issues

 * In my opinion it should show claimed territory. There's nothing wrong with empty space, if you ask me, since it is a nuclear war timeline.  And empty space leaves more room for flags and things on the map.
 * AH.com uses a "universal color scheme" in which certain colors always go with certain countries. The version I began was using it, and it was helpful.  I used "US teal" for South American states, "Australia brown" for the ANZ, and "English pink" for the East Caribbean Federation.  The UCS also has a bright red for the USSR (Siberia), a dark red for Canada, a Portuguese green, Spanish olive, Dutch orange, different blues for France and Indonesia, a burgundy color for Austria/Alps, and a purple for Greece.  There's even a Celtic green for the CA.  I'm finding the color scheme helpful, especially in the Caribbean to distinguish between the different island groups.  Benkarnell 13:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * First do not paint all South America in the same color, there is 10 countries, not a only unite nation--Fero 23:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus Discussion moved upwards... !!! @Fero: could you please pay a bit more attention where you put in your discussions!
 * Ben... :P lol
 * colour scheme I will use for a guidance, thanks.!!

--Xi&#39;Reney 20:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)