Talk:1983: Doomsday

Before you start editing, please read the Editorial Guidelines.

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

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

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

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 The latest one is mine, and since last June it's become very out of date.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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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



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


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

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

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

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

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

World Map
Hello, does anyone know where to get the blank version of your world map? Thank you L3eater 20:41, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear contamination map


I have made this map of the nuclear contamination after the war. Of course it should not be taken to seriously, but it gives us idea of which area can be re-populated, and which cannot. Unfortunately it show us that many regimes created in Europe and ex-USA seem very implausible (especially the Alpine Confederation). On the other hand it shows us some surprisingly clean areas (e.g. in western Ukraine and Montana). — Hellerick 08:44, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * May I ask where you got your information?--BrianD 16:56, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * What information? This picture is based on File:1983nuked2.PNG, the red dots for nuclear strikes were Gausian-blurred in Photoshop (thus imitating the contamination being spread) and isolines of "contamination levels" were added. The ICBM markers are larger, thus they produce a larger contaminated area. That's why I said that this map should not be taken to seriously, but still in shows which places are more likely to be contaminated than the rest. — Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 19:16, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * Are the isolines done by hand?--TEAKAY 00:02, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between radiation from elsewhere, and an actual nuclear impact. A state can survive radiation fairly easily, but an actual impact often destroys the chance for an organized government. The only exclusion to this "rule" is Lincoln, the destruction of Omaha did not affect it, as its capitol is Lincoln. --Yankovic270 19:48, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand Yankovic's comment. — Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 13:24, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he means that because Lincoln is west of Omaha, it didn't get affected by the blast nor by the fallout.--BrianD 14:18, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * THere's also wind patterns to consider, and this map doesn't show the recently "discovered" impacts all over the Middle East. But overall it's quite helpful.  I'm once again feeling skeptical about, for instance. Benkarnell 11:14, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously no Luxembourg is possible, in fact I think it would be one of the most "hot" regions of Europe.
 * I can take into account the winds if necessary (I guess it would make eastern Canada and northern Russia more polluted, and it probably would destroy the western Ukrainian "oasis"). If I'll be given am updated map of nuclear strikes, I'll make an updated map of the contamination. — Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 13:23, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * This does help to show what I've feared for a while - that our survivor states in Europe and northeastern America are altogether too optimistic. It's time to talk about what changes are needed for the Alps and similar places.  Benkarnell 16:19, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

i thought most of the detonations were airburts, not ground detonations so there would not be that much fallout. anyway, surely nations like the Alpine Confed have been canon for to long to alter. --HAD 16:47, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

The original nuke map needs a redo anyway. There were many areas hit that weren't included as well as some areas that shouldn't have been hit. Juneau for instance.--Oerwinde 19:53, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

Mythbusters?
Just out of Curiosity, what happened to the Mythbusters cast? Jamie Hyneman might be alive in Superior. Is it a Myth Confirmed or Busted on Savage, Bellechi, Byron and Imahara surviving Doomsday? And if so, s it possible that they could make a Doomsday version of Mythbusters. With all the survivors of the event there are bound to be many, many DD-related myths to test. --Yankovic270 00:12, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

US Air Force bases, Nuked!?
i let you that clear map for official USAF page, this is current but i think 1980 situation must be near (ecexion kirguistang), air base should be a prioritary target in a fast intercontinental war, nobody cares about tank and footy soldiers in the other side of the ocean. now se the map and think again, is or not that city nuked? can that new country stan up? i hope you can read that smallllll letter --Fero 07:00, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * First off please make sure to correctly mark the title to your section. Second, while some airbases would be targets, we can't assume all will be.  Bases connected with SAC can be considered targets but would minor airbases be?  Mitro 13:19, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh my, I don't think anyone knew about Lajes Air Base in the Azores - the survival of the Azores has been one of the oldest parts of this project! And so much depends on it - the Azores were crucial in the early days as a bridge between the Americas and Europe.  I suppose Lajes could have been bombed, but the capital ~160 km away) survived, but the islands would be much more stricken than the  article has been assuming.  Does Lajes have to be one of the few targets that gets handwaved away - a malfunctioning missile?  Benkarnell 21:35, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see Lajes AFB survive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lajes_Field Anyway, we're making this up as we go, and we have the final say, not a USAF base. It almost certainly would have been targeted, but maybe a malfunctioning missile that hit off shore, close enough to do some damage but not put the islands in a world of hurt? And, what would the role of the American forces' detachment at the base be post-DD?--BrianD 22:12, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Aroostook: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loring_Air_Force_Base --BrianD 00:49, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

A plausible "hand-wave" could be some of the targets weren't hit by nukes but were hit by conventional warheads. Destroying the target without irradiating the area. Conventional weapons were still a huge part of a nuclear war.--Oerwinde 19:41, October 31, 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I can see that. We haven't really looked at conventional weapons at all.  They might be a good solution to some of our problems with "secondary" and "tertiary" targets.  They could help explain how some communities survived  near middle-importance military bases.  Benkarnell 13:16, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

2009 population of the former United States
I decided to count the population figures for the survivor states in the former United States, assuming that each number given was up to date. Here's what I've found:
 * Alaska - 50,000 (plus 15,000 in Siberian Alaska)
 * Aroostook - ?
 * Cave City/Portland/other - 10,000
 * Deseret - ?
 * Dinetah - 100,000
 * Kentucky - ?
 * Lincoln - 890,000
 * MSP - 211,500
 * NAU - ?
 * San Juan - 10,000
 * Superior - 1,400,000
 * Vermont - 759,000
 * Virginia - 1,500,000
 * West Texas - 846,000
 * eastern Texas - 30,000?
 * Wisconsin - 100,000
 * Hawaii - 80,000

Without knowing Aroostook, Deseret, Kentucky or NAU, I'm totalling 6,001,500 people (OTL U.S. population is approximately 303 million). I'm guessing the four nations w/o population figures together range from 500,000 to 1.5 million. Is this too low, too high, or about right?--BrianD 21:08, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's low. But it might be accurate.  Don't forget the population in the states without articles.  Most of that land is more-or-less waste, but taken together will probably add to the figure.  You also dodn't count the 15,000 in Soviet Alaska, but that's very minor.  Benkarnell 22:32, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * if it IS accurate, that's scary. That's 98 percent of OTL population in the U.S., dead or never born. It would be good, IMO, to see population estimates for the NAU, Kentucky, Aroostook and Deseret. If we account for those states, plus people in the unknown regions, as putting the total number of people at 15 million (5% of OTL), is that too high?--BrianD 22:41, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * I forgot about Lincoln. That puts the total to a known 6 million people alive in the former U.S.--BrianD 23:30, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

also the NAU is not a nation it is a union between the Provisional goverment of the USA, the Candaian provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan and the Republic of Lakota. that raieses another point: technically, the USA still exsists, although cenetred in the Montana/Wyoming area. --HAD 15:33, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

English language titles
Wouldn't it be better if we made a policy to keep the titles of articles in English unless there is a good reason to do otherwise? I mean, the inconsistent usage of Spanish, French and German language names just gives the list of nations a horribly messy appearance. Especially with multilingual nations the names can even give wrong a impression (e.g. why does a Basque nation have a French language name?). Using English for page titles can eliminate this problem. Last, but certainly not least, in especially the New Germany series I have seen a various names which are either grammatically incorrect or have a very different nuance (e.g. neues Deutschland and Neudeutschland are very different concepts). Especially with the more obscure languages such errors could give dramatic results. I'd say that having a policy to use English language names would make things more consistent and less prone to errors. Now I'm not saying that non-English language names should be banned or anything, but I'd say there should at least be a functional proper reason for their usage (e.g. OTL Côte d'Ivoire). --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 15:51, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

N.B. Please note that all criticism in this comment was directed against the naming of articles, not in any way against their content.


 * I don't know - more Rules can be a good way to make things less fun. The creators of the pages (presumably) made their language decisions for a reason.  The Basque Country, for example, was first created as part of Louisianan's series on France.  (He speaks fluent French, FWIW.)  If inconsistency a problem, maybe the World Country Profiles page can be made to show only English names.  It already shows country names that often differ from page titles: nations whose titles begin with "Republic of" or something similar are usually displayed differently, in order to maintain alphabetical order. There's no reason why they couldn't also be listed using English names .  Benkarnell 22:44, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for any inconvienience that my aricle's tite created. While I had lessons in German in high school, I only really know the basics. I got the name by running New Germany into the Babelfish online translation service on Altavista. I am nowhere near as proficient in speaking or writing German as Louis is in French or Karsten must be in German. --Yankovic270 22:55, November 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * short titles, easy to remember and write if they are not in english, we can say "Pais de Oro (1983: Doomday)", but i know only yo mismo can say "parte noroeste de africa ocupada por sobrevivientes españoles (1983: Doomday)" (nortwest part of africa occuped bt spaniars survivors), i will not use a title like that. Please dont be evil with who not understood that nice languaje you have (russian/spanish/franch/chinese/japanese)--Fero 01:23, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

How about this for a compromise: authors can put the title of any nation article they create either in English or the language of the said nation. But to make it easier for us English-only speakers, if the author uses the local language either the author or someone else creates a redirect page in English. Mitro 19:02, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * Mitro - that's exactly what I would stipulate. I guess I'm going to have to make some changes of my own, but this is the English version of the Althistory Wiki - I would expect that those who contribute to it should have a page name redirect at least in the English name.  Were this any other language, I would expect a similar statute. preceding unsigned comment by User:Louisiannan
 * @Yankovic: I'm not sure to which extend my German can withstand the comparison with Louis's French, but it's good enough to see some grammatical errors. I'll post an explanation on why the two forms are different on your talk page.
 * @Fero: It is not titles like Pais de Oro I was speaking about, a direct comparison with the already mentioned Côte d'Ivoire may be drawn fot that one. I even inserted a country myself with an Afrikaans language name that would be outright silly to literally translate (Volkstaat). Keep in mind though that even Côte d'Ivoire is formally referred to in English as the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire not as République de Côte d'Ivoire, which is mainly what I am aiming at.
 * I must admit having written this comment after yet another day with a series of tiresome lectures taught by native speakers of Dutch and English, which have apparently collectively decided to lecture in the "wrong" language. Sole purpose of which seems to be causing huge headaches and annoyances. Please forgive me for having therefore grown a slight aversion to linguistic xenomania over time. I won't try to push this proposed policy on anyone (I've been a proponent of potentially ignorable guidelines rather than real rules anyway) and just issued this as a probe to bring the issue forward. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 12:24, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Guyana
Why exactly is Guyana not a member of the South American Confederation? It's one of the earliest country pages we have, yet it's never been explained. Is it only a matter of time, do you think?

Along the same lines, with the SAC such a powerful and prosperous organization, have any neighboring states (Central America, the Caribbean) requested membership? Or candidate/observer status? Benkarnell 03:09, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * I have always thought that the natural expansion of the SAC would take it north into Central America and even Mexico. I think Colombia annexing that Costa Rica island is a good example of that.  Mitro 15:08, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

British-Azanian Codominion over KwaXhosa
Surely this only makes sense. After a disastrous war like the Xhosans had and the amount of violent pressure groups, surely the LoN would intervene to stop chaos from ruling. It only makes sense for two local powers to take control. Also what precisely is so strange about New Britain annexing small areas in its vicinity- just as the SAC and CANZ do? Bob 17:09, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * Tricky. To be fair, I don't think either superpower has actually annexed anything other than uninhabited isalnds.  And superpowers usually get to behave differently from other countries, anyway.  It's not fair, but it's true.  And NB was in fact the aggressor in the KX situation, which might make others feel less sympathetic.  But then again... it _is_ a stable power in a region with few.  It may be able to present a case that co-dominion is the best way to go.  Now the Azanian League, AIUI, isn't really a country at all; it's an organization of mostly Black states in the former Transvaal region.   But maybe, the Azanian League and NB can be authorized to supervise elections and help with a provisional gobvernment in KX.  Like a condominum, but with the intent to leave soon... a lot like the RZA.  Benkarnell 23:11, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Latest Archive (nov 3)
When I saw the page had hit 6 figures, I knew it was time. As usual, I tried to leave the active discussions on the page, but may have screwed up. If you want to "rescue" a thread, they're all on Page 8. Benkarnell 23:11, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Image copyrights
As an admin on this wiki, maybe it looks bad that I have to ask this, but... what is the policy regarding copyrighted images? Since this project delves into some pretty obscure topics, and the lives of some obscure people, there are already countless images on here that came from wherever we could get them - often, including copyrighted sources. Do we get off easy since we're using the photos for fiction/art purposes? Or is it time to start purging? I know I've uploaded some images from journalistic websites... those should probably go, if any. Benkarnell 23:59, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been uploading pictures straight from Wikipedia, which I've assumed are available for public use.--BrianD 03:28, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * (I'm Ben, at work, not signed in): I'm thinking of some of my pictures of semi-obscure people that don't have images on WP. Hawaii's governors, Goldblatt & Pilago, are not WP images; frankly I can't remember where I got them.  Probably have to delete them, much as it pains me.  Costa Rica's President Patterson comes from an official Costa Rican government website, so I assume it's public domain.  My pic of Samoa's HoS Tupua is a non-WP image that I picked because I liked it.  It's all over the Internet (to the extent that a Samoan HoS can be all over the Internet), but it's probably best if I replace it with an image I know is free. 207.177.213.142

I know non-profit creative stuff gets a lot of breathing room when it comes to copyright. I say just leave everything as is. If someone complains, delete it. Generally when using a copyright image or whatnot without permission, and people actually care, you'll get a polite request not to use it. Unless you're using the word "edge", then Tim Langdell will be all over your ass.--Oerwinde 08:02, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Link problems
Why is it every time I try to link to the it is always red linked? Mitro 03:18, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Test: Multi-National Peacekeeping Force (1983: Doomsday) See what I mean? Does anyone know why this is happening? Mitro 20:16, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

That is very strange. I directly copied the title of the article and linked it. Sorry I can't be of more help... (It doesn't work! Multi-National Peacekeeping Force (1983: Doomsday)) --DarthEinstein 22:42, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Multi-National_Peacekeeping_Force_(1983: Doomsday)

Needs underscores between everything it seems.--Oerwinde 23:10, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Musicians in 1983: Doomsday timeline
From the Celtic Alliance and New Britain pages, it's been established the following bands exist in TTL:
 * U2 (they almost HAVE to be the biggest act in the world in TTL)
 * Barbara Streisand
 * Barbara Dickson
 * Enya
 * Dave Matthews
 * Runrig
 * Sheena Easton
 * Shop Assistants
 * Christy Moore
 * Kate Bush

I've also established that the following bands and singers known in America probably survived in Australia:
 * Keith Urban
 * Savage Garden
 * Silverchair
 * Catherine Britt

Anyone else you can think of? Keep in mind they would have had to been in a non-bombed area of the world on Doomsday.--BrianD 02:11, November 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * Was Manchester nuked? If not then the members of Oasis might have survived and founded their group, though they likely would have a different name. --DarthEinstein 02:15, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Of course, there would be bands exclusive to the 1983: DD timeline. Acts that wouldn't have existed in our world. Like The Four Horsemen or Doomsday. I bet there would have been a massive increase in the amount of emo, goth or death metal bands than in OTL. --Yankovic270 03:09, November 7, 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.

Operation Red Blood
A UIP operation to dissolve the communist break-away states -- MC Prank 17:34, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you add a link? Benkarnell 13:17, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

MediFleet (1983: Doomsday)
Proposed LoN organization. Mitro 18:44, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there anyone who objects to graduating this and marking it as a stub? Mitro 14:40, October 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm confused as to how the Celtic Alliance surrendering control of the medical institutions becomes surrender of political control to the United Nations? Louisiannan 19:39, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Yikes! Missed this one. I object on several points: Benkarnell 21:57, October 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The League of Nations' medical arm is the International Red Cross, re-established just last March with its headquarters in Geneva.  It may be that MediFleet is an older organization, recently put under League control and not yet merged with the Red Cross (probably a good thing, since the Red Cross so far has mostly lacked things like actual doctors and ambulances and hospitals - it's all in the works).
 * 2) The group just recently rejected the idea of the Celtic Alliance turning control of itself over to the League of Nations, because it made no sense.  No nation ever has or ever would willingly relinquish its own self-government, certainly not to an international body run by who-knows-what country next.
 * 3) Even the idea of turning all hospitals in the country over to the LoN makes no sense.  Where's the money going to come from?  And if the Celts are still going to pay for them, then what exactly are they handing over?  Just decision making power?  Why would they do that?
 * 4) The UN/LoN administers territories and hospitals in places where the normal authorities cannot do so.  The C.E., one of the world's wealthier and more successful countries, is a very odd choice for LoN takeover.
 * Alright it doesn't seem people are acceptable about the idea. Unless Mjdoch or someone else makes some of the suggested changes I will mark this as obsolete.  Mitro 23:56, October 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the idea of a Celtic-based MediFleet is a good one. It's just that this page was written (I think) when Mjdoch was still considering the idea of ceing C.A. sovreignty to the League of Nations.  Now that this idea was rejected, the idea of MediFleet has to be re-worked given what we know.  It may be that the C.A. has turned MediFleet over to the LoN.  Benkarnell 00:55, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the article. What do you think? Mitro 02:27, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is fine; it's kind of like how the WCRB was originally and ANZC institution and was transferred to the LoN. However some expansion might be wanted because this article has barely any content. --DarthEinstein 02:34, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * I know its small but the idea was not mine originally. Mitro 02:42, October 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * I like it, but I'd like to hear from Mjdoch since he's the creator. Benkarnell 03:47, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Northumbria (1983: Doomsday)
a nieghbour kingdom that i've written to link into Kingdom of Cleveland (1983: Doomsday) page, currently a work in progress--Smoggy80 11:37, October 10, 2009 (UTC)


 * I love the idea of the Lord Lieutenant coming to the aid of his people as the Kingdom collapses - makes for a great story, one of many compelling ones to come out of this ATL. And the new kingdom couldn't ask for a better royal seat!  A couple of minor points: first, that is a lot of bombs!  How could anything survive that's caught between themm?  Do you think their number should be reduced?  I'm not sure; it may be that the towns are far enough away that there's a "safe zone" around Alnwick that can form the nuvleus of the kingdom.  Second, according to Wikipedia, Lord Hugh died in 1988 anyway; if he got premature radiation-induced cancer, that might have to move forward in time.  Third, will a royal marriage really result in the unification of the two kingdoms?  That feels so medieval - but then, this is a post-apocalyptic world.  But while Northumberland feels very much like a medieval kingdom, formed by the personal initiative and influence of the King, Cleveland feels much more modern and constitutional.  The Queen, after all, was more-or-less invited to the throne, wasn't she?  The country of Cleveland itself seems to have been formed by the people rather than y one powerful person.


 * Then again, they might be looking to unite anyhow, and the marriage just provides a way to seal the deal. Oh - did Cleveland and Northumbria design their flags independently?  They're very similar (both being based on the same old banner); has this caused confusion?  Was it deliberate?


 * Finally, it appears that the Percy family are Dukes, not Earls, of Northumberland.


 * I think that Henry is the perfect sort of person to declare the re-creation of Northumbria. From what little I just read about him, he seemed like a flamboyant, unpredictable sort of peer, just the type to resurrect medieval Saxon imagery.


 * Final question: what is the relationship of the two kingdoms to the Celtic Alliance?   The CA might very well see them the way Canada sees Saguenay, an inconvenient local power interfering with their resettlement of the country.


 * Wes hal! Benkarnell 00:54, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

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

Albania
Enver Hoxha ordered the construction of some 750,000 bunkers (for a population of 3 million), in the OTL has been viewed as an example of dictatorial eccentricity but in the ATL may mean the saving of many lives. Coupled with the fact that there was only a nuclear explosion in Tirana, the Albanian capital, and that the Albanian territory is very mountainous, which it would preserve enough of nuclear contamination. The backwardness of the country would not be an obstacle in the post-nuclear world, however the population was accustomed to decades of famine and poverty. Ethnic persecution in neighboring Yugoslavia and its eventual successor, the South Slavic Union would involve a large influx of refugees from Kosovo and Macedonia to replace the population died. Finally the power vacuum in northern Greece allow Albanian expansion in this area Tristanbreiker 17:04, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

You have it the other way around. The island of Kerkyra (called "Corfu" in English) has actually been highly interactive on the Albanian coast, not so much colonizing so much as banding together with any surviving refugees, having tiny settlements fly the Kerkyran flag. Mr.Xeight 01:14, October 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I think Yugoslavia's been more-or-less presented as an island of stability. So likely the refugees would move in the other direction, from Albania into Macedonia and Kosovo.  Although I do like the idea of a rural-based Albanian survivor state.  Maybe it could move somewhat across borders, since mainland Greece (if not the islands) was/is a great mess after DD.  Benkarnell 05:05, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Corsica
Still have not said anything about Corsica, what suggestion you more attractive?, Power vacuum?, Independent Republic?, another French rival republic of the Republique Francaise des Terres Australes?, allied Republic to the Republic of Sicily?, puppet state of the Sicilians?, puppet State of the Alpine Confederation? or none of these options...Tristanbreiker 17:57, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * What if the Corsicans have their own republic, however there are many supporters for alliance or annexation with all of those that you mentioned, leading to lots of civil unrest, and perhaps becoming a warzone in the new war with Sicily.--DarthEinstein 19:33, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * The Republique Francaise des Terres Australes definitely claims it; that's been written already. How about - Corsica is a pawn in the rivalry between the Alpines and Sicily? Each side supports a faction in a long-drawn-out proxy war in Corsica.  Benkarnell 21:57, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

I always envisioned an indepedent republic wary of the Alpinians and Sicilians, which is why I've never written anything on their involvement on the war. But a decision on the fate of Corsica would be very helpful for my Sicily War, which hasn't seen direct army-to-army fighting, and nothing bigger than spontaneous firing from ships encircling North Africa, but believe me, it's-a-comin'. Mr.Xeight 02:33, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Then Corsica is disputed territory, supporting the Sicilians one faction and the Alpine Confederation the other.Tristanbreiker 18:12, October 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * Knowing the Corsicans, most of them would favor just keeping the two out of the area, because they want to be independent.I'll agree to it being disputed territory, but they'll likely favor the Alpines over Sicilians because the Alpines might let them go free. Louisiannan 17:36, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Tibet
This is an independant country in the Himalayas, authored by Vladivostok. --DarthEinstein 15:55, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * I am guessing that much of the PRC apparatus in Tibet was destroyed along with Lhasa - is this why the Dalai Lama was able to come back so early? Did he face opposition from PRC officials? It seems like the Tibetans made an awfully fast transition from "waiting for the PRC" to "inviting the Dalai Lama". Benkarnell 14:19, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well,Tibetans want to be free even now and I think they would quickly jump at the chance to become independent. Three months isn't really that short a time to figure out that help isn't on the way,they had plenty of chances to figure out what happened to the rest of the PRC--Vladivostok 15:02, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Siberian Republic and East Turkestan
I was thinking of adding East Turkestan as a Republic in he SSR,because of Soviet historical support of East Turkestan's independence,there was no direct hit on the Chinese province of Sinkiang and because of the need to survive in a post-nuclear war world. Also,i was thinking of adding an article on the Alaskan part of Siberia,as well as making a few changes in the Siberian article,adding history,etc. --Vladivostok 06:27, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and the Soviets would look to grab as much land as possible in lawless Mangolia and remnants of Japenese Islands nearby. -- MC Prank 17:30, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well for now just land in Central Asia,as you can see in the Siberian page,which is finished,mostly.--Vladivostok 19:20, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

Communications and mass media
I'm interested in how mass media and communications works in the 1983:DD world, so I've started a page for it. Your input and help is greatly appreciated. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Communications_and_mass_media_%281983:_Doomsday%29 --BrianD 22:55, October 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * I've read what's there. My only problem is that the REM/Internet seems to spread a bit too quickly. I would think that, though the SAC and the ANZC would be able to use it, as would countries associated with them, elsewhere it would not be available. Many people likely would not have personal computers, and large scale computer production seems unlikely outside of the SAC and ANZC. --DarthEinstein 01:13, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * I revised it to (hopefully) a more realistic scale.--BrianD 01:55, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * So from what I gathered it is in place in the SAC, ANZC, Canada, Singapore, Mexico, and the Celtic Alliance. That sounds good to me. --DarthEinstein 02:15, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. They're building an infrastructure to expand their version of the internet worldwide. The only limit is funding and public/private initiative.--BrianD 02:27, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * We've discussed the Internet before. Last May, Hellerick proposed the idea of a coordinated (mostly private) international effort to retrieve, systematize, and share information.  It would be called the International Information Preservation Project, but everyone would call it the Doomsday Library.  The idea had huge potential, but it stalled somewhere, and no page was created for it.  In the process of the discussion, we talked a lot about the Internet, so it might be helpful to read what was said: Talk:1983: Doomsday/Archive 3.
 * I also have one suggestion: when I summoned the "Alaska Broadcasting Corporation" into being (thanks for remembering!), I imagined it as Alaska's local affiliate of the ANZBC. Regarding public radio in the US (a topic I'm very interested in), NPR itself went nearly bankrupt in 1983 and had to take out an enormous loan from the CPB (see this document, especially the section "Transition Period from April 30, 1983 to October 31, 1983" - what a lucky find!).  I'd imagine that the public stations would be some of the most crucial ones in the Aftermath era, their being so community-centered, so that's impotrtant to know.  I also think that the local Alaska and Hawaii NPR stations, or their successors, would have become ANZBC affiliates upon annexation.  Benkarnell 21:13, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * The only thing about that, Ben, is that I envisioned ANZBC as a merger of the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), Television New Zealand and Radio New Zealand, all owned by their respective governments. The best I understand from Wikipedia, their OTL equivalents are much more like the BBC or CBC than PBS and NPR. But that certainly isn't set in stone, at least as I am not the author of the ANZC. --BrianD 21:44, October 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * The ANZC does not have any one author. I figured that after years of dictatorship, civil war, rationing, military occupation, and unrest, what was left of Hawaii's public radio station would be glad to accept state sponsorship, and the change in status that would come with that.  Same in Alaska, although the situation there remains unclear.  But "Public radio evolves into BBC-like institutions, while keeping some American-ness" seems like a good scenario to me.  Benkarnell 22:22, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * Easy enough to fix. I could add a "Channel Two" to Alaska, accounting for a station broadcasting programming from private ANZC networks. --BrianD 23:01, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth Special Air Service Regiment (CSASR)
If anyone has the time/knowhow, would they mind creating an article for the CSASR of the ANZC (it shold be CANZ, to be correct) the guy who did the Republican Guard article seems to have a knack for this. --HAD 13:01, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

that should start the ball rolling!--HAD 15:22, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

There is currently an objection to this article being a part of canon. Please see Talk:German South West Africa (1983: Doomsday). Mitro 14:52, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

and
A South Asian nation in the Himalayas. Still in the conceptual stages. --DarthEinstein 02:57, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

I'm done the history of Bhutan. I am by no means an expert in this region at all, in this timeline or out of it, so I probably made some mistakes. All comments are welcome. --DarthEinstein 21:36, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

I've begun a Nepal page as well. Comments welcome! --DarthEinstein 16:50, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * I like it.Makes the region seem a little less uneventful. I'm going to redo some of the history in my Tibet article proposal,to correspond to what you have written. If you have any plan on what role Tibet would play before it got involved,let me know,I'll write a few new things,see if you like the ideas.--Vladivostok 19:31, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Tibet wouldn't want to involve itself in conflicts too early. It would want to keep good relations with its neighbours in the chaotic years immediately after Doomsday. However once it has established itself solidly it would then ally itself with Bhutan. --DarthEinstein 22:31, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made some changes to my article,trying to fit the events in with your articles as best as I could. Did you have something like that in mind?--Vladivostok 22:33, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * Your changes go into quite a bit of detail about what was happening between Bhutan and Nepal before they had actually become involved, which might be out of place on the Tibet page. Perhaps a more consise account of what happened before Tibet was involved would be better. Other than that it is fine. --DarthEinstein 22:40, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah,I did use a couple of things that don't really seem to matter for Tibet. I'll redo a few lines tomorrow,leave out the parts which aren't important for Tibet,maybe add a few events. If you want the Battle of Kathmandu to have a specific date,just let me know--Vladivostok 22:46, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'm a bit uncertain of the Battle of Kathmandu. I'm thinking that the final battle should be somewhere other than Kathmandu, perhaps more of a border city or even a city in Bhutan. If the Tibetans and Bhutanese won in Kathmandu, I'm not sure they would give it up. I don't know much about what other cities there are around there, so I'll have to do a bit of research to find the right city. But as for the battle itself, I think that when assigning a date we should pay attention to the climate in the area. I know that the area goes through monsoon seasons, though those might be disrupted by the climate altering effects of Doomsday. The time of the battle should be when it would be easiest to fight, so when no heavy monsoon weather is about. It's complicated, so we'll just keep it to the ambiguous "2004" for now. --DarthEinstein 23:31, October 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * It's always good to get information on regional wars that broke out. Why were the monarchists so much stronger in Nepal than in OTL?  Benkarnell 14:16, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought they would be more powerful because there's no USA around. Also the monarchist government had recently won a war, so that definitely increased their support. --DarthEinstein 17:01, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see the bit about Kathmandu. Yes,your right,the Bhutan army would probably try to occupy them,but I don't think the Tibetans would allow that,I think they would act to propose an acceptable peace treaty after they won the war.--Vladivostok 20:38, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

New pages for specific sports
Purpose is to summarize status of each sport in the post-Doomsday world. Let me know any other sports that we need to concentrate on.--BrianD 03:58, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * Baseball http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Baseball_(1983:_Doomsday)
 * American football http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/American_football_(1983:_Doomsday)
 * Football (aka soccer) http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Football_(aka_soccer)_(1983:_Doomsday)
 * Rugby (one page for rugby union and rugby league) http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Rugby_(1983:_Doomsday)
 * Football (other codes, specifically Gaelic and Aussie Rules) http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Football_(other_codes)_(1983:_Doomsday)
 * Basketball http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Basketball_(1983:_Doomsday)
 * Ice hockey http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Ice_hockey_%281983:_Doomsday%29
 * Ice Hockey. Its the major sport of Canada and Victoria, would likely have a large presence in Soviet Siberia and Nordic Union, and probably the Canadian territory of the North American Union.--Oerwinde 08:19, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * Hockey would be big in Superior as well. Mitro 12:42, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * Page has been created.--BrianD 16:32, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

NBC TV News Broadcast
This came about through an article I am currently working on. Having looked at it, I felt it would be more logical for it to exist as a separate item. It envisions what might have been broadcast on NBC concerning the nuclear launches on the night of DDay. I have tried to keep the times realistic in conjunction with the AP/UPI reports someone else created; however some times may not agree. I figure if NORAD did not detect the launch until 8:45 PM, I couldn’t see anyone knowing right away outside of the inner circle. You figure they have to tell the president first, before he gives the okay to release the information to the US. The time I chose seemed the best. If anyone thinks I should change them, please give me your thoughts. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 02:56, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was incredible. Excellent work. Makes you feel like you were there, and it makes you feel the despair (it also reminds me of the closing scene of Countdown to Looking Glass). We can always fix the timeline, but this article needs to stay up.--BrianD 04:00, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It is nice to know I am not the only one familiar with that film. Since I can’t speak for everyone here, I remember watching such films as Special Bulletin (which ironically won the Emmy on the night in question), Looking Glass, and the Day After when they first aired and use them as inspiration when I am writing. As someone who was probably watching the Emmys that night in 1983, I can only wonder what would have gone through my mind.--Fxgentleman 04:36, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow I am glad you put this here. I was just looking on YouTube when I came across this. It’s an emergency broadcast system message warning people about a nuclear attack on New York. Not sure how authentic it is but it’s perfect for the timeline.--ShutUpNavi 15:43, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * Does anyone object to graduating this article? Mitro 20:27, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * No. It's excellent.--BrianD 20:41, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

International Rugby Board
Another day, another page: this one is for the 1983:DD version of the sanctioning body of the sport of rugby union. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/International_Rugby_Board_%281983:_Doomsday%29 --BrianD 18:14, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

Portland, Tennessee
Proposal for survivor community north of Nashville, close to the Tennessee-Kentucky border. I'm going to develop it and hang onto this one for awhile, and tie it in to the WCRB article I've started.--BrianD 04:05, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Portland,_Tennessee_%281983:_Doomsday%29 --BrianD 17:21, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Nicaragua and Costa Rica
I was thinking of expanding the Costa Rican civil war,because it hasn't been expanded on recently and I'd also include a page on Nicaragua in the following week. I think it is time for the Soviet Bloc to meddle into foreign affairs,supplying the Nicaraguans and trying to unite the Sandinistans in their war in Costa Rica. I'd also like to write about other countries in the region,but I'll wait until there is a consensus on what to do about Guatemala and Yucatan.--Vladivostok 16:22, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

The Return of Neuses Deutschland!!!!
Since I have pretty much finished my other nations, I have decided to attempt to0 make my greatest failure much more plausible. Since I made the Republic of Lincoln more easy to swallow, I realized I could make New Germany plausible. Of course the setting has got to change. I am going to re-place it in the German-settled parts of Argentina, and it is a nation of the native-born Germans, not immigrants from Germany itself. The name comes from the South American Germans wanting to showties with the "old country", but not seem like no more than a colony. --Yankovic270 20:45, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
 * This could be interesting. Perhaps it could be like Israel, where it is declared a haven for Germans and German refugees and survivors from around the world could settle there over the years. --Oerwinde 21:43, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

I changed the location of New Germany to Iowa because of its German-American population, and its seemingly having survived intact and impact-free. And besides, South America's nations (even though the articles have a dissapointing lack of content) have borders hthat are pretty much set in stone. --Yankovic270 22:50, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

And who is a proper candidate for the current Neu Deutsch Chamcellor? I'm holding out for a local politician who is of German descent. --Yankovic270 23:47, October 31, 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm with Benkarnell, who was trying to make the point that starting a New Germany inside Argentina was as unrealistic as doing so inside the U.S. Why would anyone from Iowa, realistically, decide to form a continuation of Germany inside the United States? Their land was destroyed by Communists, they're struggling to survive, and that motivates them to renounce their American heritage and decide to form a New German Republic? Their grandparents may have moved over from Germany, but their loyalties are to America. Most 19th- and 20th-century immigrants to America kept ties to their country of origin but considered themselves Americans first and foremost (as opposed to French, Germans, Irish, etc. living in a foreign land) and assimilated into American culture. --BrianD 02:31, November 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * Take this from a virtual ethnic German: after a few generations people just don't identify with the country of origin of their ancestors any more. I guess this effect will only be stronger still when they move to some place from where you cannot actually walk to the German border. And now I'm not even mentioning greater cultural and linguistic differences yet and the fact that America has traditionally had, and still has, a society that is a lot more assimilative. Germany fading into the night is seriously going to be the least of the German-Americans concerns in a post-DD environment (This regardless of the fact that Germany does not in fact fade into the night in this timeline). In short, I too am with Ben and Brian on this. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 15:32, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ben, Brian and Karsten as well. Post-DD won't inspire ethnic Germans in the US to form their own Neo Germany.  The melting pot aspect of the country would mean that many of these Neo Germans would have non-German ancestries mixed in their background.  Too many generations have passed by in Iowa that many ethnic Germans would see themselves as Americans which just some hard to pronounce names and a few unique recipes they share with guests.
 * Also I'm not sure how intact Iowa is after a nuclear war. The instability after the war would probably just leave tiny survivor states on the par of San Juan, most likely centered around Lee, Emmet and Palo Alto counties.  Mitro 00:04, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

Then what if instead of them controlling the entire state, they are one of the survivor states. I could see them controlling a sizable chunk of the state. Tell me, where is the highest concentration of ethnic Germans in the state? And who should i choose as the New German Chancellor? --Yankovic270 17:15, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * You are still ignoring one of the main points people are arguing: that its is implausible that German-Americans in Iowa are going to recreate Germany post-Doomsday. Of the original German immigrants who came to Iowa, most would be either dead or so old that the aftermath of Doomsday would mean an early death.  There is a large population of ethnic Germans where I live, but I doubt they would slip on some jackboots just because of a nuclear war.  I don't think anyone even knows how to speak German.  According to Wikipedia, only 1.5 million Americans can speak German, out of a nation of 300 million.  Even Iowa doesn't have the largest concentration of Germans in the US, North Dakota and Wisconsin do.  But those people are German-Americans, people who have been born in the US, who have learned English (which is probably the only language they know) and know only American culture.  Though influenced by their German heritage that doesn't make them less American and more German.  Mitro 17:38, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * Mitro, you took the words out of my mouth. We appreciate your fervor, Yankovic, and your desire to contribute, but please remember that this is collaborative and striving for a certain level of "reality." Louisiannan 17:41, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mitro. But consider that we now have four German speaking nations in this TL already: Prussia, North Germany, the Alpine Confed, and German Southwest Africa. We definitly have no shortage Germans, considering how nuked it was. --DarthEinstein 18:15, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the idea of a re-created Germany in Iowa is highly implausible I do however believe there is room for a survivor nation within the state of Iowa--GOPZACK 20:50, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * A small survivor state in Iowa is possible. Still the current format of the article is not.  Mitro 00:38, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Then give me suggestions on how to remold New Germany into a smaller and more plausible state. I am all ears. What do I call it and who is in control of it and other important issues like that. --Yankovic270 03:55, November 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * There already are "New Germanies". We have North Germany, we have the Alpine Confederation, we have Prussia, and we have, or may have, German Southwest Africa. There certainly would not be a "New Germany" in the America's, but rather a minor post-American nation. Lahbas 04:12, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * Lahbas is right. It is impossible to make a "New Germany" in America.  A plausible survivor state in Iowa made up of mostly German-Americans is one thing, but a new German Empire where everyone speaks German and practices German culture is impossible.  Mitro 14:51, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

International Ice Hockey Federation
New page created for ice hockey's governing body in this timeline. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/International_Ice_Hockey_Federation_%281983:_Doomsday%29 --BrianD 04:09, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * How does this relate to the individual countries' hockey leagues, such as the CHL or the VHL? --DarthEinstein 16:25, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * Very little. The purpose of the IIHF, in this timeline, is to regulate international competitions and help regrow the sport globally, not to dictate how domestic competitions are governed.--BrianD 16:48, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

WCRB expedition into the southern U.S.
I've begun a page that will hopefully give some idea as to what is going on in the region, while allowing for editors to create future articles. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/2009_WCRB_report_on_the_southern_United_States_%281983:_Doomsday%29 In a nutshell:
 * there were survivors, especially on the periphery (Texas, Kentucky, West Virginia).
 * The deep South apparently was hammered by racial violence and the aftereffects from radiation.
 * Every state listed in the article was explored, but not every part of each state was. For example, in Texas, West Texas was known to the WCRB, and explorers also took the time to investigate the ruins of Galveston and Corpus Christi.
 * Florida is the most explored area, but even the Cubans haven't explored the entire state.
 * Apparently there were dozens of micro-nations in the region at various times, including five black nationalist nations and no less than eight manifestations of the Confederate States of America (usually one, two or a few towns from neighboring states claiming their entire states, or the entire South, as their territory).
 * Some of the nations had political and military power to back up their claims, but many of the states were in name only.
 * Cuba is the only country that had independently gone on expeditions in the region, up through Florida into central Georgia. West Texas is now exploring central and eastern portions of the former state of Texas (and indeed has claimed the entire state as its own).
 * Despite Cuban protests, in the areas NOT a part of canon or current proposals, the WCRB sent either non-Cuban scouts (including former Americans from Mexico) or, in the Florida/Georgia area, non-Cubans were assigned with Cubans.
 * The reason for this was that the WCRB thought that locals would view Cubans as Soviet or Communist invaders continuing the war. It was thought that American, Mexican, UAR and Brazilian scouts would be better received.
 * Much evidence regarding the fate of surviving cities and towns was found, but only 19 surviving communities were discovered. (I'm not sure yet where all they're going to be.)
 * One of those communities, Portland, Tennessee, has an article. Contact was made with it, and another in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. The other 17 communities were observed only, as WCRB scouts had been instructed to be cautious.
 * One community in South Carolina seemed to be predominantly black, with some white and Hispanic slaves; another, in Arkansas, was white-dominated, including Klansmen and black slaves. Scouts deemed both situations to be unsafe for contact, and it is thought that the scouts were able to get away unnoticed.
 * The standard of living in each surviving community outside of Florida seems to be 19th century.
 * Cuba got to lead the expedition into the South (and one of its officials as the head of the project), but the LoN, after pressure from Mexico and Puerto Rico, more or less took oversight of the project out of Cuban hands and into its own.
 * After some diplomatic "discussion", and some pressure from certain Cuban officials to explore the entire region for "peaceful" purposes, Cuba finally relented, agreeing to an actual lesser role in the project.--BrianD 17:17, November 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * I kind of like the idea of Cuba already having a very established economic presence, at least in the Gulf Coast and/or Georgia. For many years, Cuban traders may have been those people's only reliable source of industrial goods.  It would make for an interesting reversal of the world order heretofore - one of the main themes of this TL.  (And one we sometimes neglect, since we've focused so many times on the few survivors of the USA and Western Europe and the influence they still exert.)  In this way, I'd think that Cuba would be able to present itself as the country best-equipped to carry out League of Nations-sponsored activities in the region, kind of like how Greece maintains the Suez region in the name of the League.  Benkarnell 00:50, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting idea. The key for that to happen is for the Cubans to gain a measure of trust (which they apparently did in Florida and Georgia); perhaps they did so partly by blaming the war on the Russians (and explaining away Siberia as another country separate from the 'warmongers'). Also, is Cuba's economy in this TL like communist China's in ours?--BrianD 01:40, November 2, 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. And don't think I'm trying to force my ideas on you, because I'm not.  I had just liked the idea, hinted at in the Cuba page, that Cubans were becoming economically dominant in the former Deep South.  I don't think trust would be an issue - with all society shattered & destroyed, I think many Southerners would welcome anyone offering generous trade terms.  And this would be a very recent phenomenon, since Cuba itself was very unstable until the mid 90s.  So maybe Cuba is just beginning its ascendancy in the region, and isn't yet strong enough to dictate anything to the LoN.  But Greece is similar - it was also a nuclear target and is only just recovering and making its influence felt in surrounding coast lands.  I guess I kind of feel that we need some "reverse colonialism" to balance the regular colonialism we're seing in North (and South) Africa. So don't take my ideas too seriously, I suppose. Benkarnell 13:24, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is very much in flux anyway, but all ideas are appreciated! I'm going to use the old map as a guide in regards to Cuban influence. And assume that somehow, Cuba and whomever locals remained were able to come to some sort of agreement: U.S. resources in exchange for help, with the alternatives being Cuba going in and killing everyone (and facing a potential war with an American-influenced Mexico), or facing a guerrilla-type scenario that would render any benefits to Cuba useless. I'm also going to establish Mexico as having some kind of presence and oversight over Cuban affairs in the Georgia/Florida region, which up to now has been considered territory "of Cuban influence" due to a total absence of local government. I also want to establish that in exchange for goods from the U.S., that Cuba (and Mexico, with the 'encouragement' of the LoN) have gone in at least to the Everglades and restored electricity. --BrianD 15:19, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

Since this deals with the southern US, I wanted to throw out a thought I have been contemplating. What would have happened to the off shore oil/gas platforms in the Gulf of Mexico belonging to US companies? Were they taken over by another nation, i.e. Mexico; were they destroyed on Doomsday, and if so, why about the resulting pollution it would have caused; or did they band together in some sort of micronation? As strange as the last thought may sound, I was thinking back to Sealand, an offshore British naval fort, which became an independent country back in 1967. It’s plausible some of the crews could have used boats to move families from places like Morgan City, Louisiana to the platforms to wait out the chaos. Of course the big problem would be where to get food and fresh water. Plus they would have to defend the platforms and there would be the question of how much EMP damage was sustained on Doomsday. --Fxgentleman 18:20, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * You raise a great point, Fxgentleman; I would think the Cubans and Mexicans have already laid claim on the oil platforms. But your idea regarding the people on the platforms deserves consideration. As far as them being targets, every list of targets I have ever seen never included oil rigs. Most reading I've done on the subject suggested that the Soviets expected to survive, and win, WWIII. One would think the Russians would have wanted to disable American capability to fight and defend itself, then come in (if possible) at some point and take any resources it could, not destroy them all.--BrianD 18:48, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

Since both Cuba and Mexico claim the oil platforms, I could see both of them recognizing whatever micronation on them to keep them out of the other's hands. Hypothetically speaking, what would they call this micronation? I definately can see it be rich from oil exports. --Yankovic270 17:26, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * It might be named after the person who founded it, though what his (or her) name would be I don't know. Or they might decide to name their country after a US president. Or they might have a boring official name such as the "Republic of the Gulf" or something. --DarthEinstein 17:40, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

The Republic of Roosevelt? The Republic of Washington? The Republic of Jefferson? Do any of these names sound good to you? --Yankovic270 19:32, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * Name it after the company that had ownership over most of the platforms of the time. It makes more sense that way, and could at least serve for a temporary name. Tha major problem however would be the hurricane seasons, since they are known could occasionaly cause severe damage to the platforms, and in TTL there is no effective way to repair them. IF there are any that are mobile, as I have heard might have existed. They likely would link them together into a giant floating island in order to prevent this, while also acting as the "capital". Lahbas 20:22, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

How did we get to people establishing entire countries on oil platforms? People might stay there for a time, but permanently? If anything, they would have abandoned the platforms after a period of time and taken their chances on shore. Anyway, if anyone stayed on those things and survived, by 2009 some nation would have cut a deal with them: we get you off this platform onto dry land where you can start a life, and we get the platform and rights to drill for oil.--BrianD 20:59, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

I'll submit this idea to the entire community regarding the oil in the Gulf of Mexico: there may have been survivors who evacuated to the platforms on DD, then went south to safer lands after it was clear that America had become a wasteland and unsafe to return to. By 2009, Cuba, Mexico, the East Caribbean Federation and the League of Nations are haggling over who has the rights to the oil, but all agree they're not recognizing any wingnuts living on the platforms who claim themselves as the "Kingdom of the Gulf" with sovereign control over the region and its resources. This is alternate history, not Waterworld.--BrianD 21:13, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * There were no movable platforms in the Gulf at the time, which previously I thought there were. They had been in developement at the time, and only two existed, both in the North Sea. I can imagine them acting as pirate vessels, though eventually being abandoned or sunk due to the actions of either nations or nature. Also, many of the platforms in the Gulf would collapse at this time, due to disrepair, the lack of proper materials from the mainland, etc. Most would be abandoned during the first year, while those few where the population could de-salt the water would probably maintain their presence for a longer period. Still, only those near the coast would probably remain populated, and would have fallen under government control. As a result, I think that only those two I mentioned in the North Sea would likely remain removed from national government control, or at least maintain independence. Lahbas 22:51, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

When I originally posed my pondering two days back on this subject, I had been wondering what might have been the future of these platforms in the DDay universe. As to the thought of some unified government encompassing all the platforms, I agree it is a bit of a stretch. I was thinking more in terms of a few platforms forming one or more micronations. As I mentioned, back in the late 1960s, the micronation of Sealand was established on an old British naval fort (which resembles an oil platform) about six miles off the English coast and in fact still exists to this day. Believe it or not, there have been attempts from time to time by groups to establish such micronations on offshore platforms; however, they were scuttled by nearby nations. I figure these rigs are normally manned all the time and more than likely would have had crews on DDay and “might”, and I stress this point, be seen as a lifeboat in a sea of chaos. As I previously mentioned, survivors would be facing some definite problems to make this viable and in the long run may depart, maybe to LA or Mexico. It is also to be expected by 2009 the global oil companies who would have survived would have reasserted control. However, another thought which did not occur to me originally, was whether some rigs might become part of some survivor nation located along the LA coast. I have no idea how many rigs were out there at the time, but this website I ran across shows how many were in the gulf as of 2008. http://maker.geocommons.com/maps/268 As has been discussed, there are still many open question marks about so many aspects of the post DDay world and this was just one of those I wondered what might of happened thoughts rather than a specific idea. --Fxgentleman 01:29, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Article suggests a survivor state on the Central California coast. No offense to the author but I do not find this nation to be plausible as is. There is near 1 million people living in this nation and I don't think post-Doomsday California could support such a population. Mitro 20:27, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * I am going to change the population number to 85,000 User:Riley.Konner

Other than a simple population reduction I believe this idea is fine. No matter how hard hit an area is, there will allways be survivors. It's simply human nature. --Yankovic270 20:32, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, there would be survivors. Maybe 20,000-30,000 made up into nomadic tribes that were in constant war over resources. There would be no stable government, if there was one, the land would no longer have been arable, and the desert for all purposes would expand west because of this. Lahbas 22:58, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually that is not a bad idea for the region Lahbas, a small population made up of rival gangs, nomads, tiny hamlets, etc. fighting over resources. Probably not all that different from what the  article looks like.  But an organized nation state is implausible.
 * What does the creator of the article have to say about all of this? He seems to be ignoring the discussions happening on the article's talk page and this page.  Mitro 00:36, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I was waiting for you all to finish If the Central Coast gets accepted then I will begin work on a nation in Santa Cruz which is pretty much what you all talked about. If you actually read the article the nation isn't a superpower as you describe it to be it is a cultural advocate. User:Riley.Konner
 * As of now I can't support the article. It is too optimistic.  The place would have more in common with Road Warrior then what the article suggests.  Mitro 18:42, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * But Santa Cruz would make more since for a road warrior nation, this is because during the years 1982-1985 Santa Cruz was the most dangerous city in the U.S.User:Riley.Konner

Plus if any of you where going to make a nation based off of the region you live in you would probably write the article to the near exactness I have.User:Riley.Konner

I agree with the sentiment. It is what made me decide to create Assiniboia. I do live in Southern Manitoba. --Yankovic270 04:15, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Jim Douglas interview
Working on transcript now. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/ANZBC_interview_with_Vermont_President_Jim_Douglas_in_October_2009_%281983:_Doomsday%29 --BrianD 22:18, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a dispute about whether this article should remain in canon. Please see the article's talk page. Mitro 14:54, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Prisons
There is potential for small nations lead by former criminals. There are bound to be maximum-security prisons that survive DD. If any of the "supermax" prisons existed at the time, then there is massive potential there. Most of those facilities were fr away from large population centers, for obvious reasons. I could see one of these inmates declaring himself warlord over even a small city-state in the midwest. --Yankovic270 18:14, November 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yank, you don't get nations from those, you get thugs. Even if they formed a government, I couldn't imagine one more unstable. Lahbas 19:12, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

True, but for all the thugs there are in the prsions there are white collar criminals. The schemers. The men or women who can get the thugs to work for them. Why do you think organized crime is still arround? Because there are men or women (but usually men) who can give orders. --Yankovic270 21:50, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

i agree with Yankovic270. theres a hierachy in everything, even in prisons. --HAD 09:48, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

I have read (in a fictionalized account of a post-apocalyptic world) about these, for lack of a better term, fiefdoms run by former criminals who had naturally escaped from prison when they were abandoned. I could see Crime lords seizing control of territory in the midwest. It would be like an American, and less refined, version of Sicily. And what role is the Yakuza playing in post-DD Japan? For those who are not familiar with the terminology, the Yakuza is the Japanese Mafia. --Yankovic270 04:10, November 7, 2009 (UTC)