Talk:1983: Doomsday

Before you start editing, please read the Editorial Guidelines.

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

Former Proposals: | Page 1 |

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

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

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

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

Nuclear Weapons
*Overview of current contents within TL

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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


 * French Arsenal

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


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


 * Global dealing with Nuclear Weapons post-DD

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

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

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


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


 * Global Political ramifications

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

Nuclear Energy
to be described soon!

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

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)

i think somone like Micheal jackson would be viewed as a prophet and would attract a fallowing which would be viewed as a religion--Owen1983 15:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's hope not. Mr.Xeight 19:47, 20 July 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)

My whole family would be dead in southern Chicago :( Mr.Xeight 13:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

My family live in rural Lincolnshire so I don't think my parents would have been killed. Unfotunately my parents hadn't met yet so I wouldn't exist. However I may have many "half-siblings". Bob 18:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No me around yet either. But since my parents live in the rare truly rural part of The Netherlands I guess they'd have a fair chance at survival. Whether they'd meet is a much different matter though. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I lived about half an hour drive from Montreal so I might have survived and being one of the

many refugees going to the Saguenay (part of my familly is from there).

I would have survived becuse my perants well my mum lived in the Algarve at the point of DD I live in Bury a small town in Mancunia--Owen1983 14:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if I would have had any chance of survival... On September 26th, 1983, I just turned 4 months :( And living in Westfalia at that time... 2 hours west from the Inner-German Border, south of Hamburg, east of Cologne, north of Frankfurt, close to the Rhein-Ruhr region...hmm.. looks like I've been living at the junction of Mushroom Cloud Alley and Radiation Avenue... Even if I had been with my grandparents... one surrounded by (known and confirmed) US nuclear missile bases and German army bases and 10 kms of Frankfurt-Hahn Airbase... the other 40 kms east of Frankfurt near Hanau...US army bases, German Border again, near the Fulda Gap... anthing I need to add? --Xi&#39;Reney 17:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, my own birthday, May 30th, is infamous to be the expected Doomsday! According to Jehovas Witnesses and a german folk song...:( --Xi&#39;Reney 17:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My birthday was the day a fictional British Empire took Cuba from the Spanish :D Mr.Xeight 18:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * @Xi'Reney Well... at least the last thing you'll be doing is having a party, can imagine worse things to end life with... Anyway, can I find the text of this folk song somewhere? Just a bit curious ;). --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Karsten, here a link to the youtubevideo of the german folk song "Am 30. Mai ist der Weltuntergang" Youtube
 * And the lyrics: Lyrics in German if anyone is interested I might translate that to English, but it is in general a 1955-song about "The world is coming to an end and we have to drink as much as we can before" :):):) I always hated this belief in my birthday being th end of the world, but what can I do about it...--Xi&#39;Reney 21:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well my parents would be dead 10 years before I'm born, fun fun fun... And I only just noticed that (@Mr.Xeight) :D --Gamb1993 09:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Absence
Just a heads up to everyone: I'll be gone until the sixth of July. Farewell. DarthEinstein 04:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Bye! If it's a vacation, I hope you have fun. If it's job related-I hope the conferences aren't too boring :) Mr.Xeight 13:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and by the way I miscalculated, make that 13th of July. Farewell again! DarthEinstein 15:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What are you still doing here? You'll miss your flight - get going!  Benkarnell

Have been away for a few days...road trip in Germany, and only briefly here, at least until the weekend (going to visit a Belgian girl :):) . So please do not be sad/in anger/in despair :P will throw in comments again soon. --Xi&#39;Reney 21:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC) To all WCRB: Keep up the fabulou work !! THank you, you guys are amazing!!

The Best
What do you think are the best articles on this TL (note: don't name your creations or anything you made major contributions too)? Mitro 13:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Off the top of my head, I'm a big fan of the Netherlands Antilles. Benkarnell 15:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * hmmm..after your limiting question, mitro ;)

--Xi&#39;Reney 17:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Hawaii
 * 2) Nordic Union

the world in 2009
Climate change this has had an odvious effect on the world and is a major concern

Disease the rsate of a lot of cancers has increased

Europe with the braek up of SSR last year things are looking hopeful

Technology since DD all technology ceased but this restarted 9 years ago

Transportation this is back to pre doomday levels thanks to a huge effort to kickstart automotve production

Willdlife has suffered due to radiation but this is getting better

--Owen1983 16:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarification
User :86.156.70.49 is actually User:Mumby but my computer has been a tad funny of late. 86.156.70.49 16:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

2009
i think there would be major differences between are 2009 ant this ATLs 2009 for instence major world events aftere 1983 never ocured oor happened differently --Owen1983 19:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First off please put topics under the right headings, this is the second time I had to do this for you. Second off, I don't think anyone doubts that the world would be a different place after a nuclear war in 1983.  What exactly are you getting at?  Mitro 19:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

RZA
What does it stand for? Bob 09:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the ISO country code for South Africa. It comes from Republiek Zuid-Afrika, the name in Dutch... Dutch, of course, is no longer an official language in South Africa, but it was a the time the ISO code was assigned. Benkarnell 14:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

New Britain
I have received some comments that there is no point in New Britain and that it probably wouldn't exist anyway. All that I wanted was to have the Union Flag fly over land, no matter how small. A world in which that banner is lost is a sad world indeed. I think we should canvas some votes to find out whether we should keep New Britain or not. Option 1 is that New Britain exists. Option 2 is that it does not. Before you vote may I remind you that people have been calling themselves British for something like two thousand years. Thanks to the existence of the Empire something like 125,043,387 either consider themselves British or are descended from British people. Something little like a nuclear war won't end that legacy.

Existence of New Britain Option One Option Two

I think the largest and common concern, Mumby, is that your plans have all been very optimistic in a very dystopian timeline. Louisiannan 14:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not about the existence of one thing or another. The original ideas for NB and its permutations ignored the history of South Africa.  Any British survivor community has to exist in a local context.  We have spent a very long time talking about this, and I think you had finally reduced the idea to something workable.  But if you're mostly concerned with preserving a feeling, then there are lots of ways that can be preserved outside of South Africa (where the British flag had not flown since 1910, and which had severed all connections to Britain in 1961).  The Falklands probably have some official recognition of their Britishness, as do the British citizens of the Celtic Alliance. There could theoretically be a British parallel to the Committee to Restore the USA operating in the British Isles, including Ireland.
 * Another possibility is Prince Andrew, who we've established was a likely survivor. Find a place for him to establish a court-in-exile (the Caribbean?  ANZ?), and he could even be contemplating a recolonization of Britain itself, possibly in cooperation with the Celts, possibly in competition with them.  Come to think of it, we know very little about the Caribbean.  He could have ended up in one of the colonies or Commonwealth realms there, where he still was heir to the throne.
 * I'll echo Dan: this TL is not about wish fulfillment, quite the opposite in fact. Some of us may enjoy the idea of Nordic union or revived Celticism or independence for Hawaii, and therefore may like aspects of the world of 1983.  But it's supposed to be a realistic look at how the world would re-form itself following a catastrophe.  As far as nationality goes, my loyalty lies with the USA, and yet for this TL I've been telling the story of its dismemberment; I even argued against the original version of the North American Union, which was an over-optimistic USA rump state.  My point is that we're trying (hopefully) to explore the most plausible results of an apocalyptic event, and that will involve things that nobody likes.
 * Finally, I will add that the British identity isn't as old as you suggest; there was no such thing as "Britain" until 1707, and even then many people hated the idea. Benkarnell 15:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Mumby we're all truly sorry but there is no way whatsoever that Britain can survive in any way at all. Any royal family in London at the time I can bet all of my life's savings are dead; radioactive piles of ash scattered across hellish ruins. If there was anyone in succession to the throne somewhere in the world that didn't see radioactive Hellfire rain down from the skies carried by enemy planes, maybe he could set up a government in exile in wherever. If he was in Australia, he would actually be the head of the government anyway, and be given high esteem in the country, maybe a palace built for him, he could marry a native Aussie, etc. When the world can set up communications again and everyone knows everyone else is out there, this successor to the throne could set up his government in the Celts' Cornwall area, the closest place he can get to England without fighting three-eyed cannibals. As for a 2nd British Raj in Nepal or a British Empire from Cape Town to the Congo is pure ASB, please take that somewhere else. Mr.Xeight 16:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't share Mr. X's view that it is impossible for their to be a British exile state somewhere. South Africa might work but as we have said repeatedly you need to tone down the scope and optimism.  I fear that you are trying more to recreate the British Empire then a British state.  This will not be some enlightened empire bringing light to the darkness, but just one more survivor state that is trying to ignore then mass grave of skeletons in their closet.
 * Furthermore I agree with Ben. The concept of being "British" was a product of the 18th century and is certainly not 2000 years old (I think you mean "Britons" who were Celts and have more in common with Ireland then Britain today).  I doubt even the concept of being "English" existed back then since the Anglo-Saxons hadn't shown up yet and I doubt any Picts thought of themselves as being British.  Plus not everyone in Britain today likes being British (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_autonomist_and_secessionist_movements#United_Kingdom_and_associated_territories_.28Europe.29 for a complete list).
 * Also a nuclear war wouldn't end the British legacy just because there state doesn't exist. The US might be disbanded in this history but their "legacy" lives on in the ANZC, the Committee to Restore the USA, the US government in the NAU and the various successor states.
 * Finally nationalism is great and all but this is supposed to be a plausible alternate history. Plausibility, not nationalism, should be at the forefront every time you sit down to write something on this TL.  Mitro 17:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

After thinking a while I casted "no". A "no" which means New Britain as a separate, sovereign nation of that name not existing. From all experiences I made, especially in 6 months in New Zealand, so breathing in Commonwealth Air and meeting a lot of BRITAINS, the strongest impression I had is that a true "british" identity/nationality share by the largest part of the country does not really exist. "British" seems to me more a kind of a collecton of several national identities mixed up and rought together in a name. I felt that the lived and felt nationality in the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" and it's people lays more in the English, Scotish, Welsh (Irish?) heritage, language and culture. This based on the centuries-long process of forming different cultures (norse, anglo-saxon, celticetc.) and nations, often battling each other for decades into the United Kingdom.

If you add the 17th-19th century British Empire and later the 20th century Commonwealth I do not argue that a certain, common "british" heritage exists and will definitely be carried on post-Doomsday (English, basic law system, culture etc.). But given the diversity and the highly developed national identities in the "colonies" at that point, in 1983... I do not see a serious oppurtunity for a formal, sovereign and influential state of "New Britain" surviving, not in the scale of a nation in South Africa. What I could imagine, taking your phrase "have the Union Flag fly over land, no matter how small" is one (or several) of the small, then-still-crown colonies after being able to survive declaring a "New Britain", maybe in a symbolic gesture after a surviving royal(Prince Andrew or alike) takes his residency there...this might be accepted by the ANZC, MSP etc. to tease/appease a "British Royalists Movement" having gained political influence there(headed by old "Lords", RAF&Navy members or sth aka) canditates? but St. Helena, Tristan da Cunha, Ascension... Or maybe a Federation of all/most of them? "British colonial Federation", "British Crown colonies Association"... sth. a like?? Hard to imagine sth. in the Pacific... too far and to small... Or can you imagine Adamstown on Pitcairn being declared British Capital?? And to dependable on the ANZC.
 * Carribean was a good hint: Bermuda, Brit Virgin, Cayman Islands, St. Vincent etc...
 * South aAtlantic would be potential...NOT the Falklands!
 * In Europe sth. like the Channel Islands, Gibraltar, Malta...

A "NEw Britain"/ "NEw British Empire" is more something suitable for a Doomsday-Scenario taking place decades earlier, 1950's or 60's, resulting NOT in a devastation as large as a mid-80's total nuclear war.

And if I were a refugee from the UK somehow being able to survive I would probably try to get as far away from the radiation on the Island as possible. If the ANZC takes me, okey then. I would guess there would be a strong variety of refugees and where they go. The Scotsmen would probably stay within the Celtic Alliance territory, if possible...also the Welsh and Irish expected to be working closely...the English...I guess they wouldbe keen to leave, if they can...being privileged to most european survivors/refugees because having at least some countries helping them out of old tradition!!! (Imagine a german, Italian or East European survivor trying to being brought to Australia??)--Xi&#39;Reney 17:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I had an idea last night. How about an enclave similar to Orania in ANZC for self governing British remnants. They could have a head of state in some distant heir to the throne and actually be governed by a 'British Survivors Administration'. Bob 17:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would this happen when in this TL it did not happen for the Americans? ATL the US disbanded in 1995 and its remaining territories were given the option to either join ANZC or try for independence.  Mitro 18:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Bob, the best we can give you is the closest surviving relative of the Current Royal Family setting up a government-in-exile in some state, maybe even with autonomy if the group sees fit. No Nova Imperium Britannia. Mr.Xeight 19:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the fact that the ancient Britons shared more in common with the Irish. The three groups of Celts in the UK were very distinct, especially the Brythonic Celts from the Goidelic ones. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britons_(historical)) As for your secessionist parties, almost all of these are objects of derision and often amusement in the UK. The only really serious one is the Scottish National Party and even then doesn't manage to get a majority in the Scottish Parliament. It took a very long time for Scottish devolution to set in and the main reason they wanted it was because they felt detached from Westminster because of the policies of Margaret Thatcher and John Major. Today under a more Scotcentric Labour government the Union is much more popular. Independence to Northern Ireland is often met with outright hostility. In 1974-79 welsh devolution was suggested but the referendum declared a staggering no by almost 700'000 votes. Even when they got their own Assembly it only got in by a very narrow margin. The very idea that English is British is a fallacy. The Scots mostly guided the development of the British identity in the early years. It was a Scottish king who envisaged himself as a new Arthur, King of the Britons. Saxon and Celt were united against the threat of Papacy. Both World Wars reinforced the Union of the two races. If you come on a jubilee or another time of national celebration you will see the union of which I speak. In the past, it has always been crises and the threat of liberty and freedom which has drwan English, Scot, Welsh, Cornish and Irish together into the umbrella of Britishness. Besides British has a better ring to it. Also 98% of the genes of the British Isles is the same as the first settler in this green and pleasant land. Bob 19:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Bob -- whether the Britons considered themselves Britons or not, the true point of all of this discussion is this: For the 1983: Doomsday timeline your proposals are quite simply too optimistic and too broad.  They don't fit the timeline because of this.  If you can tailor your proposals down using the suggestions of the kind-minded folks who've taken time to review your many suggestions, I think your ideas can find a place here.  If you don't wish to tailor them down, you might wish to elaborate a timeline in which they will fit.  Louisiannan 21:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Geography
It just occured to me whilst reading the Climate page, that Geography may have been altered dramatically. There may well be craters from the bombs which have become lakes. And the rise in sea level would surely alter continent shapes dramatcally. Surely we should take this into account in the map?Bob 14:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Fero once made a map showing likely places where bays had been deepened. We've already seen a large lake appear in Egypt.  I'll bet a lot of those island targets in the Pacific look very different today.  Benkarnell 20:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Per my suggestions on Climate, the sea-level isn't actually rising because of the increase of rain/snow across the northern hemisphere, which is leading to the greening of the Sahara, increase in glaciation, etc. It's also resulting in the temperate zone pushing a scosh more northerly, meaning that temperatures there are much the same as here -- just wetter.  But that also means there are going to be more than a few nuclear lakes. Louisiannan 14:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

request
could pple please put new posts at the bottom becuse the tak page is becoming cheotic thanks --Owen1983 23:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should. Our current setup has three separate sections for general discussion, proposals and the world map.  If we get rid of said sections things would actually get more chaotic since they would no longer be organized in their category.Mitro 00:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Could setting up a forum structure like The Nexus be an idea? This page is getting rather lengthy, so it might be worthwhile to split it up. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe, we could split this page into three seperate pages with the links to each on the back of this page. Mitro 15:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

we need some kind of structure my favoure idea is to saught the article into alphabeticle order this will make the talk page easier to use --Owen1983 18:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No More Nationalism
I don't know about you all, but new people who happen to have nationalist tendencies are starting to axacerbate the situation of this particular TL slipping from reality to the most unfortunate condition known as "ASB". We need to do something. I propose a sort of "Inquisition" of Contributors where they split up the pages and carefully exam them to see what should stay, what should be downgraded, and what should... I supposed you could see it as a "surrender of democracy", but is it really that bad? Frankly I'll admit that my Peloponnesian plans for Libyan domination might be a little unrealistic, so I'm not afraid to volunteer my work first. Mr.Xeight 23:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that if everyone sticks to there own country it will ad to distrust between nations i would like to remind people of the events of 26 years ago when nationalism and fear between the old USA and the old USSR led to 3billion deaths --Owen1983 13:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Owen, it IS a dystopian time line. It's not meant to be all rosy and happy utopia rising from the ashes, unless I've misunderstood.  I think it's definitely important that we don't have anyone in the northern hemisphere declaring that they were somehow not nuked, that they some how have the wherewithal to "save the world."
 * I don't agree, however, that we should go through and rip out work -- I think that we need to work with those would be contributors, just like other projects I'm involved with. Granted, some of them just won't get the hint, and we'll have to ask them to leave, but some should start to understand the feel of the timeline, and will be accepted into the group.  I think more of the pen, less of the sword. Louisiannan 14:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry-but this is not a place to reiterate the foundation of DD. I am quite serious of letting stronger hands take over and fix the mistakes we have; unless the group is perfectly happy with some of the recent shortcomings. Mr.Xeight 17:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Louisiannan has got a valid point and on occasion it is inportent to reiterate the foundation of DD I consider myself as somone with stronger hands but I am happy to let the group evolve --Owen1983 18:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Since creating the proposal procedure generally three things have happened when group consensus is against approving the proposal:


 * 1) Editor changes the proposal or the article he has made to make it more plausible.
 * 2) If no article is created, the proposal is rejected and removed from the talk page and the editor does not object.
 * 3) If an article is created, the editor agrees to allow his work to be listed as obsolete or voluntarily asks for it to be deleted.

Eventually though we are going to run into an editor who is either uninterested/unwilling to make the changes to his or her work for it to be acceptable to the group. Unless we have a plan about what to do in this situation we may have articles that sit in proposal status for a long time. It would be even worse if the editor does not agree to mark his work as obsolete or voluntarily request deletion.

I think a gradual process is in order. First we continue to try to reason with the editor about why his or her work needs to change for it to be canon. Second if the editor continues to be unwilling in making the changes we should reject the proposal if that is the group’s consensus and politely ask that he or she remove mention of 1983: Doomsday from the article. If he or she refuses someone should go in and remove all mention of 1983: Doomsday from the article (article name, categories, links, etc.). If the editor attempts to revert this then I think requesting deletion is necessary, but only as a last resort.

I suggest this procedure because I do agree that we should not be hasty in deleting or removing someone’s work. No one likes to see there work be unceremoniously removed by complete strangers and it is better to give them a chance to either improve their work or take it to their own fictional universe. Marking it with the obsolete banner gives them a chance to return in the future or have someone else come along and make changes to it.

Hopefully we will never come to this situation. Someone who is truly able to work in collaborative setting would probably not be so stubborn that he would refuse to accept the rejection of his proposal. Still it is best to be prepared with a process to follow in case the situation ever comes. Mitro 14:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Wikibreak
I have decided on a wikibreak cuz theres a lot of other sstuff i need 2 do --Owen1983 19:32, 29 July 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.

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)
 * These articles have been in proposal status for over a month and though 2 of them are barely started is there any particular objection against their graduation? Mitro 14:08, 30 July 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.

Alright I finally tried to start wiriting what I think is a plausible history for the region. The following includes info from all sources that talked about the region, plus some things I added:

While not directly attacked, the climate changes and other damage done to the Earth by Doomsday had a horrible effect on South Africa. Meanwhile the loss foreign trade caused the South African economy to collapses.

By 1984 as chaos grows throughout the country, large numbers of Afrikaners begin fleeing to the region around the Afrikaner-only town of Orania, Northern Cape. These refugees begin organizing into militias to secure control of the area using harsh forms of punishments to maintain order. Meanwhile a convoy of ships is organized for Europe to save as many people as they can from the Netherlands and Germany.

Despite martial law being declared in 1985 rioting runs rampant and the government is forced to abandon several cities to anarchy. As it becomes apparent that the white minority is shunting food and fuel rations to primarily whites, black South Africans explode into open rebellion. When guards abandon the Robben Island prison, members of the ANC rescue (August 17th) Nelson Mandela, but the joy is short-lived as Mandela dies in a bombing raid by the South African Air Force on a Pretorian black neighborhood.

In 1986, the few people evacuated from Britain by the RAF and Navy, gather around Port Elizabeth after the city was secured by remnants of the British military. The refugees found the new Anglo-African state of New Britain after promising elements of the ANC working with them that they would have equal representation in the new state. Prince Andrew is transported by the Royal Navy and is crowned King in Port Elizabeth. Meanwhile the last ship from Europe arrives bearing refugees for Orania.

By 1987 the last remnants of the South African government had ceased to exist and the state had degenerated into various warring factions and warlords. Orania, Griqualand, Deutsche Suid West Afrika (DSWA), Mapungubwe, Boputhatswana, the Orange Free State and KwaXhosa all declared independence. Pieter Botha flees to the newly established Republic of Orania where he is welcomed and eventually elevated to President in 1988, however he suffered a stroke a year later and was forced to step down.

The Zulus also declared independence, but almost immediately fell into civil war between the Zulus the Inkatha Freedom Party and the monarchists.

The late 1980s saw the alliance of Orania and the DSWA becoming a major power in the region and both expanding their territory at the expense of other warlords and factions in the area. However the elevation of Frederik Willem de Klerk to President of Orania ended the short-lived alliance as the new president attempted to end the near-genocidal policies he felt his nation was implementing on black Africans inside and outside of Orania. His actions only led to war in 1990 when Helmut Schmidt of DSWA ordered an invasion of disputed territory between the two nations. The war between the two states would continue on and off again throughout the 90s, until an official peace treaty was signed in 2000.

In 1991, chaos in India causes a large number of refugees from there to flee to South Africa, causing further strain on the war torn area. Many head for New Britain but others try other places in the area.

In 2006, a joint ANZC and SAC military force captures Cape Town to depose the horrifying warlord regime the ruled the city. The new RZA Provisional Government is set up but is merely able to secure a small region around Capetown with the support of a small joint SAC/ANZC garrison. Still the mission was the first multilateral peacekeeping mission since Doomsday. Gradually the RZA expands into the de facto lawless warlord-ruled territory.

In support of the SAC/ANZC invasion, New Britain launched an invasion into KwaXhosa and the Orange Free State. KwaXhosa fell quickly but the Orange Free State put up a stiff resistance against New Britain’s invasion.

The ANZC/SAC invasion had an interesting effect on the region. By 2007 both sides in the Zulu civil war had declared a cease fire fearing they would be the next New Britain target once. In 2008 negotiations between Republic of Orania, Griqualand, the DSWA, Mapungubwe and Boputhatswana succeeded in creating the New Union of South Africa that united the nations into one political entity. One of the first acts of its new Prime Minister, Angela Merkel, was to condemn New Britain’s invasion of KwaXhosa and the Orange Free State and demand that they return to their original borders. Fearing that they had united all of former South Africa against them, New Britain pulled its troops back from the Orange Free State but refused to leave KwaXhosa.

In 2009, New Britain proposed the “African Economic Community” in an effort to unite the economies of all the states in the region, but so far only the RZA has become a member. The Orange Free State meanwhile continued to work closely with the Union, but was still wary of joining.

What do you guys, think? Feel free to edit it.Mitro 20:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I still wonder why Afrikaners are going to Germany and the netherlands in the first place. And why one of the most war-torn places in the world would be the chosen destination of so many refugees at different times.  As for specifics, I think the new take on Anglo-African expansion makes sense, though I think it would make sense for them to expand due north and bypass KwaXhosa, or at least only hold it temporarily.  I see KX, assuming it exists, as one of the more viable states in a fragmented South Africa.
 * Just to clarify a slight nuance in my idea of a Zulu civil war: in OTL, the Inkatha Freedom Party and the Zulu monarchy were allies. I just see their alliance falling apart in a post-DD world.  Benkarnell 16:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to make changes to it. I feel if we can make a group effort to come up with a general guideline about what happens in South Africa we can bring this proposal to a close finally.  Mitro 19:02, 13 July 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)

I thimk a DD novel is a verygood idea but eny works must reflect the SS POV --Owen1983 14:04, 26 July 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)
 * Wildlife, I would compare to the wildlife in the exclusion zone around Chernobyl. Technology -- I think we'll be lucky to see 1980's technology before 2020. Louisiannan 21:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

I was added a new nuked map File:1983nuked2.PNG, with The Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia are two UK-administered areas on the island of Cyprus that comprise the Sovereign Base Areas military bases of the United Kingdom. The bases were retained by the UK following the granting of independence and the eventual transition of Cyprus from a crown colony to an independent sovereign state. The United Kingdom demanded and succeeded in continuing to occupy a portion of Cyprus in the form of military bases because of the strategic location of Cyprus in the Mediterranean Sea in pursuit of UK interests, nuked and Berlin too, if you like we can change her name to the classic File:1983Nukes.png --Fero 23:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


 * My comment:


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

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


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

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

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

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

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)


 * You mention creating a British State in South America. However all land in South America is accounted for. Where would a British State go?
 * I never said they would create a state in South America, only said they would go their as refugees and be accepted by the governments there. Mitro 21:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there anything else wrong with this? Bob 17:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have mentioned other issues on the talk page. Plus your copy/paste of my rough draft on the history of post-Doomsday South Africa was meant to cover just the region of the area and not to be used for any specific article. I highly recommend you rewrite the history section of New Britain to reflect that. (Note: I stopped indenting, it was getting too long). Mitro 20:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have made a rudimentary map of what New Britain claims. The areas it claims are pink. Bob 16:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

What insired me to propose this was the site, or rather proposal of the Union situated in the Former American West. The only reason why I believe that Maine might survive as a functioning goverment, is that it is largely self-suffecient duw to low population, and any nulcear weapons that would fall upon it would be aimed at the Bath Iron Works Shipyard, or the area around Portland. To me, Augusta would probably not be a high-profile target for a Soviet nuke. Remenants of the Vermont and New Hampshire goverments, along with portions of Massachussetts and Canada would be under its juristiction. This would become a continuing crisis with the Canadian Remainder provinces, especially in areas formerlly controled by New Brunswick, Quebec, and Ontario. Lahbas 20:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would read the article because your current proposal conflicts with what has been established there.  Also I find it unlikely that there would be a “Greater Maine.” The indirect effects of the war would make only the northern areas of the state civilized and they would be too concerned with survival than establishing colonies as far away as Ontario.  Still the idea has merit; maybe you could call it the “Aroostook Republic.”  Mitro 20:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not mind any change of the name. If you want to call it that, fine. I only it called it the "Republic of Greater Maine because I couldn't think of anything better. Also, the only reason why tehir control would extend into former Canada is because those areas would have been cut off from the Canadian Remainder goverment immediately following Doomsday. Also, those states have not been reconsituted I believe, as stated in the article. Aroostook would also make a natural ally for the Republic of Sanguey. Acadia would have been the main zone of any diplomatic conflict, as elements of the former Maine National Guard, and any militia, would have entered the area before Canada could recover. The Republic also could extend into portions of Upstate New York, depending on how badly it is hit. Lahbas 20:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are expanding Maine/Aroostook to far. Post-Doomsday Northern Maine won't be in a condition to move its border toward New York, but maybe parts of NH could work.  The Canadian gov does though have some contact with the NB survivor communities and Nova Scotia is right there so I doubt there would be Aroostook territory there in that area.  IMO, a small nation centered on a few surviving communities is more plausible then the large expanding state you suggest.  I like the idea though and I did suggest something similar before but it got little interest, but I am interested in collaborating on an article.Mitro 20:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not so much that Aroostok is expanding, but rather remaining towns are joining either for aid, survival, or protection from the gangs that are mentioned to roam within Southern Former Quebec. Maine is the only area that would be able to give it with relative ease. Also, the large French-Canadian community in Maine, made larger after the war, would demand that aid be set outside of Maine-Proper into Canada. Later, Anglo-Canadians within these areas would probably wish to rejoin with Canada, while Franco-Canadians would wish to remain members of the Aroostok Republic. I now admit that New York is probably to far a reach, but surviving communities in Vermont and New Hampshire would likely join. Lahbas 20:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * True about mutual survival (and I'm glad your lessening the scope) but there is also the possibility that survivor communities in Vermont and NH would create their own "nations" separate of Aroostok. Still there is the possibility of the extreme northern parts of those states entering into some sort of union with Aroostock.  Mitro 01:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I can imagine Aroostook as a confederation based upon the American Constitution around the surviving communities in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. Maybe after the first couple years, after having failed to establish communications with any successor government, except maybe Canada, they would hold a referendum on the establishment of some sort of confederation, or independence. Maine and New Hampshire would support it heavily, while Vermont would be a comfortable, though noticeably more narrow victory. In the case of expansion into Canada, Maine would reclaim the territory it had claims on in the early 19th Century, along with most of New Brunswick, parts of Nova Scotia, and virtually all of Quebec south of the St. Lawrence River. In 2006, referendums are held within the former Canadian regions on whether to rejoin Canada or not. The communities in Nova Scotia vote to join with the recently reestablished state of the same name, while most of the districts in East New Brunswick leave as well. Due to heavy immigration of Franco-Canadians, along with two decades within Aroostook, most of West New Brunswick stays in the union, to the chagrin of Canada, along with the districts in Quebec. Another noticeably shaky point was that those districts annexed into Maine were not allowed to participate in the referendum. However, Aroostook will be the closest thing to the former United States you are going to get. The Republican and Democratic Parties are still active, as are the local third parties. However, electoral votes are distributed by district, rather than state. If you tell me how to make a map of that region, I could better represent it than through words. More so were to find the map than how to make it, as I have some experience with Inkscape. Lahbas 21:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the areas around the St. Lawrence are gang controlled and I don't see them holding votes to join Aroostook. If anything I could see Aroostook joining Canada for sake of survival.  Canada is larger with a better agriculture/industrial base, plus its connected to the outside world.  On another note, I wonder if the New England practice of "town meetings" might not have an effect on how the new nation is governed.  Mitro 15:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Those areas South of the St. Lawrence were rid of the gangs by what remained of the Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine National Guard. Also, French Canadians have become more important, having formed a significant chunk of the new electorate with the destruction of Portland and the area around Bath, even being declared a national language along with English. Because of this, Franco-Canadians are more drawn to Aroostook than the primarily English Canada. However, Anglo-Canadians will still wish to rejoin with Canada itself. For another matter, I would think that Aroostook would be in a better postion than the Canadian Remainder Provinces. A large part of the Maine fishing fleet would remain operational, much of the farmland would still be able to yield substainable results, and the relatively low population would ensure no food crisis would erupt before a working solution could be found. Canada would be in largely the same position, but would have the trouble of trying to communicate with all of its broken provinces, and transporting material from one to the next. Lahbas 20:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Coastal Maine (and coastal NE in general) would be too destablized for effective control. The effects of the war plus the refugees caused this.  Aroostock would logically lay across only the northern parts of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont.  I'm also concerned about how easy the remants of the three states national guards are able to work together to defeat local gangs, especially since Canada can not and the Timeline has suggested that the National Guards fell apart across the US shortly after Doomsday.  Furthermoe even a small population doesn't mean there won't be food problems as fallout will effect this region as well. Also Canada never tried to reunite the whole nation, they are focussing only on the immediate Atlantic provinces (specifically Newfoundland and PEI) while leaving the rest of the country on their own, until they are gradually reabsorbed.  They would also be able to rely on the remnants of their fleet and any merchant ships in the area.  Mitro 21:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is what I believe would be the extent of Aroostook. I know the map is bad, but I could not find an SVG file for that region which I could edit, nor one with any details I could change. The dark green areas are in full control of the government, and there is no foreign dispute. The southern green region is the area that has not been fully reclaimed, due to nuclear destruction of the urban areas and military bases within that area. The light green region to the north is the area claimed by both Aroostook and Canada. Concerning the National Guard, I only have to assume that it did not disband as there was still a functioning government within Maine proper. About 2,000 Guardsmen, taking those out who would likely have died in the nuclear attack, would form the main Army. Likely, at least half would be used to train militia from the surviving civilians, while the rest kept out the gangs from Quebec. They may also pursue them into Quebec, allying with surviving towns to drive the gangs out of the area. Another good note is that we could have the Bush family move back to the former Continental United States, though their summer home in Kennebunkport would now be ashes. Also, in terms of the fishing fleet, Maine no longer is a major in the fishing industry, but those fishing fleets operating out of Gloscester and the New England area in general, along with some maybe out of Nova Scotia, might head for Maine, based on the idea that it was “safe” territory. That way, Aroostook would have a nice fishing industry based out of Western Maine, while helping with any food shortages that might occur.Lahbas 03:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maine’s territory is still too large. You mentioned the probability of nuclear strikes on Portland and the Bath Iron Works and looking at both places I find that likely.  The strikes are going to cause refugees from around those areas to head north along the Maine coast destabilizing the region and make it difficult for anyone to control.  Furthermore I don’t know how likely it is for Augusta to remain stable, it appears to large to remain peaceful when the supplies run out.  I also think the fishermen of Nova Scotia are more likely to head for their own country’s waters since both PEI and Newfoundland made it out alright.  As for the Bush family, well I’m not sure how many of the others would survive, but I doubt H.W. would give up civilized and world power class ANZC for a third world survivor country on the radiated continent of North America.  Still I think we really do have a good foundation for an article, though I would like to hear other’s opinions on this, where is everyone?  Mitro 12:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, you know, just popping around to Lla Dafern for a pint of Jovian ale, that sort of thing. Watch out for that Helvetian mince-loaf, mind.  But speaking of Aroostook, I agree, it's too big.  The only reason I feel comfortable imagining Utah so big is the already strong control that the LDS Church has on the region.  I'm not being critical, mind, I'm just saying that the LDS church is very regimented, very organized, and has means of communication between the different levels of organization that Aroostook and others would NOT have.  Moreover, there's a certain level of adherence among the members of the church that would allow Utah to be as big as it was without descending into utter anarchy.
 * I might accept the size of Aroostook as it is NOW, but that would be something that would've had to grow into. Louisiannan 14:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I overestimated the distance between Augusta and the Portland-Bath Nuclear wasteland. For Augusta, refugees would become a problem, but not a serious one. Most people would be killed in the initial blasts, while others would die of radiation poisoning while attempting to get out. The main refugees would come from outlying towns close to the blast area. Augusta would likely be abandoned due to its proximity to the blasts. At the same time, there is a chance it might not be. If there is a necessity for its abandonment, the capitol could move to Bangor. It might move there in due time anyway, due to its central location, and being nearer the undamaged part of the state. I have trouble thinking of the entire coast being choked up with refugees. Rather, I think they would go inland. Even if the coast is in trouble, I would imagine the area from Eastport to Bar Harbor would be fine, or at least could house the beginnings of the reborn fishing industry. Also, how far would the EMP reach over Maine? Maine actually has a nice electronics industry going, and could easily replace a good piece of its lost tech, unless it was hit by those waves or the nuke itself. On another note, I do not believe that the nation is that big any more, that is actually rather small, especially considering my original estimations. What would you see as the extension of Aroostook? Lahbas 21:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The effects of the two nuclear strikes, the resulting radiation, the lack of food and clean water, the spreading of disease will all make life in the urban zones of Maine unbearable. Most major cities (and you don't need millions of people to be a major city in this case, its all relative) will be abandoned as refugees find places to feed themselves and their families.  This will not be a peaceful, organized march into rural Maine as people will fight to get what food, medicine and shelter they can.  With the US dead and Maine cut off from contact with the rest of the world, there is no one to send humanitarian supplies to help out.  This violence, coupled with starvation and disease, will means lots of people die.  Any survivors along the Maine coast, where most of the population seems to be congregated, will be only the most successful bands of hard cases who survived after adopting a policy of killing (and maybe even eating) any extra mouths to feed.  It may be possible for some of the state government to reform in the lightly populated area known as Aroostook and maybe even gather together what is left of the national guard (except for those units who went rogue to provide for themselves and their families).  It would be slow going for them for a while and I doubt they would be all that interested in pouring resources into electronics when their very survival could be at stake (when did Maine's electronics industry get up and running, was it before or after 1983?).  Eventually contact could be made with other isolated Maine communities and survivor communities in NH and Vermont and a confederation could come into being, but its implausible to think that all Maine would pull through relatively intact despite being hit by two nuclear weapons.  Thus I would generally limit my extent of Maine to Aroostook county at first and eventually expand down Central Maine as contact is made.
 * We have been discussing this for a while, how about we create the article and try to work in some of the things we discussed that we do agree on and take it from there? We will start with Year 1 and just work slowly from that point.  Mitro 21:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry I wasn't here for a while. This all looks good to me, no complaints. In my opinion, they might be associated with the Atlantic Defence Association, or whatever they're called. Though they could also be an ally of Saguenay. I'm not going to be around much of the summer, so I shouldn't get involved in any projects, but I wish you luck! DarthEinstein 17:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added some significant content to the article. Critiques are welcome. Mitro 20:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

New Germany?
Did anyone approve a Neues Deutschland, a new nation colonized by Germans in Mecca, Saudi Arabia? Mr.Xeight 01:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It was done by the same guy who did the Washingtonian Empire. Mitro 01:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy...

To the author of Neues Deutschland you're really starting to stress the caretakers of this AltHis out. We love working with new users, but you NEED to start proposing your ideas.
 * Let me use an example. The Byzantines were always a small force, but they were happy and loved to create beautiful things. Their most prized creation was the Hagia Sophia. However one day a group called the Turks decided to slap a giant cement slab over the faces of Christ, the Theotokos, the Saints, and Angels. The Greeks were sad, but what could they do? It might have made the Turkish artist happy, but do you think the Greeks were?


 * Do you want to be the Turkish artist?

Mr.Xeight 01:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

yeah... I'm really not all that used to this, but I probbably won't make anymore articles. I'm just going to edit the two artcles I created. But doesn't another Germany in the Middle East have potential? It might be interesting. I'm going to have more detail in New Germany than in Virginian Empire. C'mon don't kill Germany again. ps you killed Germany even before the official timeline started. --Yankovic270 02:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please put your responses under the right section. That being said, being pro-German is great and all, but is it plausible that it would survive in Saudi Arabia?  There are large populations of Germans living in North America, South America, Australia and Africa.  Why would a German survival state be in the Middle East?  Besides you might want to check out South Africa (1983: Doomsday). You would be interested in the German state carved out of Namibia that is described there.  Mitro 03:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No way is this one okay. A surviving autocracy in the US fits right in with the timeline.  But this one's just out in space, way past the limits of possibility.  The Arabs were not nuked on Doomsday.  many of them may have been attacked by Israel in the aftermath, but they were not wiped out.  Germany was in the very eye of the storm.  It was divided, both sides heavily armed, nations on every side who would have a stake in attacking a piece of it.  Even given total catastrophe in the Arab world, whatever happened in Germany was worse, and they are not about to start any new colonies anytime soon.
 * The net results of DD should realistically be less domination by Europe and the USA, not more. Because of group members' knowledge and interests, a lot of the work done so far focuses on what happens to those few surviving Europeans and Americans - but that does not mean they're taking over the world a second time.  Benkarnell 13:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

this is what Benkarnell was on about is that pple were creating stuff willy nilly so i came up with editing guidelines odviously some editors dont bother to read them this is annoying --Owen1983 18:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You came up with the guidelines? According to the history of Editorial Guidelines (1983: Doomsday), Xi'Reney created them.  Mitro 18:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not let us start discussing who invented the guidelines:) It might have been me in the first place but Owen did further developing details etc. as did several others. But more important than the inventor are the reasons that we have them. And they proved worthwile and have to be obeyed, by every1. Because this whole TL is far far beyond the "I create a page My new Timeline and change the history in one small point." We are more ad more developing a world in its own right. And [quote]: "Maintaining world order is an immeensive task!!! So, to New Germany,


 * The described Saudi-Arabia-empty-than-being German is absolutely implausible. Espc. "government is all the same" proves that not really much thought has been put into that. And THEO ALBRECHT buying the land???? He (for the not-knowing) as the co-inventor(with his brother Karl) of ALDI, German discount supermarket empire (similar in role to Walmart) was and is a billionaire, but I doubt he would be interested in rescuing more than his back (and maybe his families). so this is nonsense, to speak it out clearly.


 * German survival in general. I am German myself, and I do not hate my country, in no way. But as Ben mentioned I can hardly imagine any way a DIVIDED Germany (in 83) as the focal point of a nuclear war, surrounded by radiation, malfunctioning reactors, all cities devastated...maybe even some conventional war, surviving... We had a top-secret-government bunker then but even IF a government somehow enduresfor sometime...no way to end up in SAUDI-ARABIA...

so far only some local territories being "protected" by the Alpine Confederation are canon...

so we need more work on Germany. true, but what you proposed(or simply entered not through the proposal way, to repeat that) Yankovich, does not fit in and can not be considered canon in my opinion. Sorry...--Xi&#39;Reney 21:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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)

Sorry - a suggested map
I'm really sorry that this is being done in such an obnoxious way. I was planning on uploading this only after you shared yours (XiReney's), as a way to share ideas and comments. But it's been almost a month since I made it, and with nothing really going on in DD at the moment I decided to share it now. Here are my main ideas for it:
 * OTL borders are white. This was a current map, but I tried to change it to reflect borders in 1983.  East Germany still loks kind of funny.  1983DD borders are black.  They show actual zones of control as much as possible, so there are many instances where countries claim much larger areas than this map shows.
 * I use special colors where appropriate - they don't necessarily indicate strong nations, only that a color is nessecary to distinguish a country from its neighbors. All other states are grey.
 * When a country is known to exist based on its presence on a list, I show the name and, where known, the flag, but not the borders. This is the case for the entire Middle East, Algeria, Somaliland, Angola, Afghanistan, and Japan.
 * I use colors to show partial control and disputes in a few places. The violet color of the Alpine Confederation extends south of the border, since it is occupying parts of northern Italy that it does not claim.  Peninsular Italy is striped with Alpine violet, Sicilian brown, and unoccupied pale green to show that both countries exercise some power in the area.  Central Sumatra is similarly striped with Aceh's grey and Indonesia's blue.
 * The Celts' influence has been growing in England, and "free Alaska" is increasingly active in the Yukon and British Columbia. This spreading influence is indicated with little dots.
 * The Nordic, South American, and ANZC asociated states are shown as independent nations, but they are colored the same to show their association. The key labels them "international blocs", which I hope explains their status.  For some ANZC states, there was not enough land area to clearly color them tan, so I underlined the country name instead.
 * I had to get creative in Africa. Rhodesia probably no longer exists, so that will have to change.  The "New Union of South Africa" more or less reflects the alliance described on the South Africa page.  Other countries I simply added based on guesswork; they are subjectto change and maybe should be removed.  I decided to show the Zulus split three ways betweensupporters of the New Union, supporters of the Inkatha Freedom Party, and supporters of the monarchy, which at some point split with  the IFP.  A rump Orange Free State, presumably white-ruled, is listed somewhere.  I made up "KwaXhosa" comprising the Trans- and Ciskei regions, just because it seems logical.
 * I also pulled Cabinda out of thin air. It was fighting for independence in 1983, so that also felt right.
 * For many of the small states in W. Europe, I did not show flags because of space constraints.
 * Benkarnell 17:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the green blob around Taiwan is a mistake. I'll fix it later.
 * Nice map! I like how you just used the zones of control instead of claimed territory, this reflects the theme of the TL nicely.  A few comments/questions:


 * 1) I wonder if we should just drop the flags. There is just so many of them on the maps it looks crowded.
 * 2) Lakotah is technically a part of the NAU, though in all honesty I have yet to finish working out how that area turned out. Do you think it would make more sense to have them be independent?
 * 3) I think Taiwan might have been targeted during the war due to its close relation with the US.

Mitro 18:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll definitely get rid of the green blob for the next version. Like I said, I have no idea what it is or why it's there, and I didn't notice it until after the upload.
 * I kinda like the flags :-/. Let's see what others think.
 * I can color Lakota as an autonomous part of the NAU. Or just wait until we know for sure what it is exactly.
 * Almost forgot: two other nations I included without evidence, as it were, are Jordan and Sikkim. Jordan's not on any list, but there seems no reason for it not to exist.  And Sikkim was left off the India map, but IMO belongs there.  It had only been part of India for less than a decade, after all.  Benkarnell 18:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the map, I like the ZOC's, although the ones for France are a bit smaller than actual. Given that they're in flux, somewhat, I don't think that's a problem.  I'll also respond to Mitro.


 * 1) I like the flags, personally.  Something unique to this TL.
 * 2) I think Lakotah should be captured/absorbed/unified, but semi-autonomous to keep the locals happy, but prevent another war.
 * 3) Taiwan, yes, China, yes, Japan, yes, Koreas, yes.  I think there would have been a nuke at Vladivostok, among others, and I think that the surviving Japanese if they DIDN'T get hit would make a hurried grab of Sakhalin, since they already claimed it at that time, *here*.
 * 4) I think the whole of the Middle East will be glowing still by 2009, IMHO.


 * Louisiannan 18:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I Like it --Owen1983 15:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to ask this, but when exactly did the FSSR's borders become so different? The old maps show them claiming everything east of the Urals, even Mongolia; but now, the hold E. Siberia, Kamchatka, and tiny bits of Manchuria and Outer Mongolia. Mr.Xeight 16:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Map looks good. Friesland is too big though, on your map it stretches on into Groningen and East Frisia in Germany. Its territory however remains largely confined to the former province of Friesland. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

with a little alterations this would be good --Owen1983 16:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * @MrX8, the map shows zones of control, not claims. That area seemed likely to me to be Siberia's de facto extent.  It's 100% my own, though, and would be changed if Siberia's creator (who is it?) asked me to.


 * finally some words from me Ben.. sorry for remaining silent throughout the last time... the necessities of the real world took me in...my jobsearch currently sadly has priority over working on DD..this kept me from really working on any ambitious maps things as intended...

So I am glad you went on with the map work! And let me say this is an impressing good piece of work!! IMO, we should keep this design and version as official! My remarks: But we might think of a way to integrate the proposal, not fully canon-things onto a world-map version...maybe "no confirmed information received, not LoN-acknowledged" --Xi&#39;Reney 17:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Flags: should be kept! this is our trademark on our maps!
 * Siberia/FSSR:the depiction of showing controlled instead of claimed territories is much better, especially with Siberia, and the current coloring seems very realistic to me and ok like that!
 * Cabinda/Jordan etc. we should put them in the proposal section, good ideas.

For the next version
I'll be starting work on a new version soon, taking in all those ideas. My changes: I disagree with Navi's change to Canada, coloring the "middle red" zone on the File:Canada Doomsday.png map. This world map shows regions actually under a country's control, which is why I colored in the dark red (claimed and controlled) and the light pink (controlled, not claimed). AIUI, the middle red areas have provincial governments set up and are under some sort of Canadian influence, but remain largely lawless - as evidenced by the ability of Saugenay (and possibly other independent states) to function right in the middle of them. If you like, Navi, those provinces could get red stripes or dots to show partial control. Benkarnell 15:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Slightly bigger French bits
 * 2) Slightly smaller Frisian bit
 * 3) Erase the inexplicable Taiwanese color
 * 4) Remove most country names from Middle East pending more info on the region
 * 5) Get rid of Iran's borders until they are known
 * 6) Add Egypt
 * 7) Soften the NAU/Lakota border to show their true relationship
 * 8) Change Rhodesia to New UK or New Britain.
 * 9) Get rid of that orange, since now the New Union is being re-imagined as encompassing all the fragments of the former South Africa.
 * 10) Show Cuba possessing Havana, since I believe the land has at least been re-occupied.
 * There seems to be a stray orange mark in the upper left hand corner of the file (off the map). You might want to erase that.  Mitro 15:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's also a stray green patch below South Africa. It will be removed in the next round of changes - Version 3.3, if I'm not mistaken.  The orange mark is actually  a template for making the stripe pattern indicating a territorial dispute.  It actually is there to help edit the file in MSPaint.  Benkarnell 16:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have seen it it should be cerrected --Owen1983 12:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not upload a whole new version just to correct the one rectangle. I expect that I'll be making a third version of this map with some actual changes once we know a little more about the Middle East, and once XR shows up again to weigh in on the map. Benkarnell 15:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's much better than the old map. I think Aroostook should extend a bit into New Brunswick, but that's really my only comment. DarthEinstein 18:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)