Talk:1983: Doomsday

Before you start editing, please read the Editorial Guidelines.

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

Former Proposals: | Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8

=GENERAL DISCUSSION= The following is for general discussion to improve the TL that does not involve article proposals Structured into rough sections for easier navigation.

Countries/Regions/Politics
Archives: Page 1 Page 2

Is the ADC larger?
According to the Western Sahara (1983: Doomsday) article, the was part of an international force that kicked the Sicilians from Gibraltar in 2005. This makes me wonder whether Rif would actually be a part of the when it was formed in 2007. They would be enemies of Sicily as well and several current members of the ADC were part of that international force. I think it is likely that Rif was a founding member of the alliance. Mitro 17:14, December 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * All right then, I don't see why not. --DarthEinstein 17:25, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

And what about Bermuda and the East Carribean Federation? They seem to be prime candidates for an enlargement of the ADC, or perhaps observers.--Vladivostok 20:42, December 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * Bermuda was only discovered in 2009, so though they might be a potential member in the future, some time will need to pass to take care of the preliminary negotiations. As for the ECF, well the ADC was pretty much created to fight and contain expansionist Sicily. Canada is a member though despite not being anywhere near Sicily, but I think that is because they have a lot to lose if the route through the Mediterranean Sea is blocked. Would the ECF have the same interest? Mitro 15:48, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * The ECF might be more affiliated economically with the SAC because it is so close. Canada on the other hand was fairly isolated before the late 80s when they contacted the other future members of the ADC. So I think that Canada would have more trade going on with the other ADC members than the ECF would. Also, is it possible that a few of those French and Spanish successor states might be part of the ADC? Monaco and Andorra especially, since they are apparently the gateways in to former France and Spain. --DarthEinstein 16:18, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we can make an argument that anyone who was a target for Sicilian aggression was a founding member of the ADC, or at least joined later. Mitro 16:19, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Granted, the ECF would be economically closer to the SAC nations, but perhaps it would try to uphold stronger relations with with other nations in the Anglosphere. And one other thing I've been meaning to ask: How strong are the ADC and ANZC ties today? Would they support them in a cold war against SAC? Sort of like OTL Great Britain supporting the U.S.?--Vladivostok 08:39, December 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * Only 2 nations in the ADC are technically a part of the Angloshere (Canada and the Celtic Alliance), but I could see them join a revitalized Commonwealth of Nations. As for the ANZC, the article does say that they are close with the ADC, but SAC nations have aided the member states of the ADC in conflicts against Sicily. Mitro 04:36, December 27, 2009 (UTC)


 * The "Anglosphere" is i think an issue some people would love to discuss...
 * Given the old NATO structures and fellow associations (ANZUS, Commonwealth etc.) a close tie (as always stated) in between ADC and ANZC seems natural, at least militarical... this should stay and being kept. They are just natural allies in a world with few alternatives...right number 3 or for along with Siberia, right behind SAC and ANZC.--Xi&#39;Reney 23:35, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

the nations of the ECF currently place a role as the middle ground for several nations in OTL (in particular, Cuba and Venusalua on one side and the US on the other). It is possible they have a less neutral and relaxed mentality in TTL, but why not? I can't see them strong enough to pick a side without being thoroughly absorbed, so its quite possible they have good relations with most everyone, like in OTL. I could see them joining or staying out of the alliance, but I don't really seeing them to commiting to anything.128.187.80.2 17:16, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Las Vegas
Ok, so with the new news item on the main page I was wondering about the status of Las Vegas. It wouldn't have been a target on Doomsday as it had absolutely no strategic importance, it has water and electricity from the Hoover Dam and Lake Mead. The only thing it would be lacking would be food. In 1980 it had a population of about 460 thousand, today with about 1.3 million its starting to have water problems, so I don't see them really having a lot of water problems. Realistically I think Las Vegas would be in relatively excellent shape. Its economy would be destroyed obviously with no tourism, but I don't see things devolving to the point in the news story where there are only 20,000 people left. Its possible that with the destruction of the tourism industry there some of the hotels and such could be converted into vertical farms such as this.--Oerwinde 00:58, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

More than likely Las Vegas and the adjacent North Las Vegas would have been destroyed given the proximity of Nellis AFB which was listed as a primary target for a Soviet attack. Since the city sits in what is essentially a bowl, the intial force of the blast or blasts would more than likely be confined to this area. However, given the winds I could see contamination of Clark County from the fallout of not just Vegas but California, more than likely rendering it a dead area for awhile. Once the radiation passed it is probable people could return, but water would be a very serious and ongoing problem, and most likely would affect choices to inhabit the area. However, it would make more sense people would gather around Lake Mead, if Hoover Dam had not been damaged or struck. Given that the electrical capacity of the dam would have been fried by the EMPs, I don't see it providing electricity for some time. It could see slowly be restored over time by someone like Utah and would require a number of people to do so. If survivors, say such as those from Boulder City could make it to to the dam, it would provide excellent shelter from fallout. Having toured the interior of the dam, I could see a scenario where workers plus others form a community that spreads around Lake Mead, and eventually is incorporated by say Utah. --Fxgentleman 19:51, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't realize there was a military base right in the middle of the city. That seals that then. A survivor community based in Hoover Dam and around Lake Mead would be pretty sweet though.--Oerwinde 23:52, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Well you are all talking about this so start it, make a new article about Vegas. Riley.Konner 05:53, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

I would be interested in collaborating with Oerwinde on a possible future article about this area. However, since he made the original suggestion about Las Vegas, I feel it would have to be his decision. Otherwise, I don't think it would be fair to write anything by myself.--Fxgentleman 03:54, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've got no problem if you want to go ahead. I have plenty on my plate with western Africa right now.--Oerwinde 05:19, January 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe some influence could come from the Navajo Nations/Reservaiton in the area?? I can remember the huge coal power plant from my travel some time ago...
 * what bothers me is if the Soviets would spare a nuke to target Hoover Dam/ Glen Canyon Dam or something directly? Would be a vital hit against californian energy infrastructure, water supply etc... given possible later pacific coast invasion plans..
 * if not nuked... controlling this energy infrastructure of the area -bonus: fresh water lake mead, lake powell- would be of crucial interest for neighbouring entities and maybe even a war-reason...--Xi&#39;Reney 23:44, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nuking it would be redundant I think. It would likely be disabled by EMP making a nuke pointless. Turbines would still turn and such, just not produce electricity until repairs were made. The population of a possible survivor community in and around the dam could likely repair it after some time depending on how many people with working knowledge of the dam survived. --Oerwinde 08:31, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Germany
Prussia is going to start moving west and south, and I wanted some input on which areas might have survived Doomsday. I made up a rough map of possible political boundaries down the road. This would be after the area has stabilized into more or less solid political units (how stable they are is up for debate). Nations in the map are: That map wouldn't be accurate until probably 2020 at least, but thats the basic idea. Right now Prussia is beginning to expand into its claimed territory, and will likely encounter Weimar and Northeim as they are beginning to solidify their control on their areas. The protestent churches in Hesse are further integrating into a single United Hessian Church and are acting a unifying influence on the surviving populace. The Württembergs in Ravensburg had been gathering a private army with their money and influence in order to keep the area safe for themselves and have been pressured into using it to tame the surrounding lands. The Rheinland Confederation is in its infancy, and Bavaria is undergoing reconstruction with aid from the Alpine Confederation. North Germany I would think is beginning to take control of the lands between their controlled regions. Anyone else want to add to this, rip it apart, etc? --Oerwinde 08:13, January 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Rheinland Confederation - An alliance of small municipalities and city states with a rotating capital.
 * Northeim - A city state based out of the city of Northeim
 * Weimar - A city state based out of the city of Weimar
 * Hessen - A protestent theocratic republic
 * Franken - Northern Bavaria decides against joining the Alpine Confederation and becomes an independent republic
 * Saar - Small feudal nation, ruled by the Sheriff, who was head of a military unit that survived DD and was able to establish order through brute force and oaths of loyalty. Not evil, just does what he thinks needs to be done.
 * Württemberg - Constitutional Monarchy based out of Ravensburg.
 * Alpine Confederation - Southern Bavaria joins the Alpine Confederation in 2015.
 * Württemberg - Constitutional Monarchy based out of Ravensburg.
 * Alpine Confederation - Southern Bavaria joins the Alpine Confederation in 2015.

i like the idea. but i hop no one develops it to the extent of the nations shown in the map. as of 2009, Germany is in a very rough way. HAD 00:15, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes its in a really bad way right now, but we have 3 major nations now that will be a major stabilizing influence, either gobbling up territory, or uniting others so to not be gobbled up. Radiation isn't even a factor anymore. The map was only a guideline anyway, theres obviously room for more city states and such, though I would have the Alpine Federation, Prussia, and North Germany being the dominant.


 * Maybe the North German Foreign Office has made maps like this showing their vision for the next decade in Germany. (Prussia's Foreign Office probably has maps that look very different indeed ;-)) Now do all of these states exist right now in some form? They would all need some sort of justification, of course, to make sure everyone agrees with their creation. I personally have no problem with them. Probably Germany's map looks a lot like France or Spain - tiny permanent settlements that claim larger regions of the country. Benkarnell 14:57, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well Württemberg right now is only a small region surrounding Ravensburg. As momentum builds smaller communities join willingly and warlords surrender in exchange for amnesty. I figured it would be something similar to Prussia only on a smaller scale. The old royal family plays a major part in the establishment of the nation and in thanks the monarchy is restored, although in a similar role to modern monarchs. They wouldn't be established as a nation until about 2014-2018. Saar is well on its way, and the Rheinland Confederation will have begun forming in the south of the area in response from Saar aggression. Hessen doesn't exist yet, but the protestent church there is starting to band communities together. I would say possibly the outline of a nation sometime by 2016. Weimar and Northeim would exist but to a much lesser degree, probably only controlling a third or less of the territory on the map. Franken would be established sometime after the Bavarian vote in 2015 with joint aid from Prussia and the Alpine Confederation. --Oerwinde 20:04, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

North Germany in my perspective is heading for a Socialist rule. It seems that a socialist party would be able to gain a foothold with mass unemployment. I also think that North Germany and the Kingdom of Prussia may have a war on their hands. I think North Germany and Prussia would dived the land between themselves and the Alpine Confederation. Cheifaugust 23:19, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Spiritualism and local cults
And I mean cult in the non-perjorative sense, "a group of believers with common practices". Humankind has felt a burning need to fit the senseless World War into a spiritual framework that makes some kind of sense. This has no doubt led to some local practices developing and thriving that would seem "odd" to us. So far, the only example that's been described in detail has been the deification of Abraham Lincoln, which developed in Nebraska as we know. What has been happening in the cultures that you all take care of? In Hawaii, the most unchurched US state before DD, elements of the traditional religion have been widely adopted by the non-indigenous, especially cultic practices connected with place. Since Hawaii and Maui have been lifeboats for the nation, holy places on both islands (such as the temple at Pu'ukohola Heiau) have come to be seen as even more sacred. Another thing I was thinking of was the growth of local millenarian cults in the US. Many Christians, especially Evangelicals, would probably try to fit DD into existing prophecies about the end times. This was already happening with contemporary events: 1970 was the year of The Late, Great Planet Earth, after all. So I think that some of the "survivor communities" in the US are religious as well as as political centers - for whatever reason, they draw religious pilgrims from surrounding communities. Doomsday would have caused such an intense spiritual crisis for so many, I bet there are local cultic centers all over the former US, including outside the traditional "Bible Belt". An event like DD would make millenarian ideas more attractive to many people. Benkarnell 17:52, January 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, Ben. Perhaps some of the communities would have turned into Koresh or Jonestown-type camps, a few going the direction that Jonestown went in, many in a more positive direction. In the U.S., I could see survivalist camps; communities built by churches or powerful, charismatic religious leaders/people; communities founded by such out-of-the-1983-mainstream groups as hippies, gays and lesbians, Amish, anyone who saw Doomsday as their opportunity to build their perfect society. These communities probably would number in the hundreds, a few in the thousands. Christianity would be represented among these groups, but there would be at least a substantial minority of groups that were non-Christian. My take as a Christian on the Hal Lindsey stuff is that the whole end-times thing would have been turned upside down. One point of emphasis by "prophecy" teachers like Lindsey is before the return of Christ, a charismatic figure would take the world stage and become the leader of a unified global government controlling everything and everyone, even while things gradually fell apart leading up to the second coming. Doomsday would have eliminated, albeit temporarily, many of the venues that were seen as enabling a global government to control people and commerce (or, could Antichrist really be Antichrist if he only were in charge of Australia and South America)? Undoubtedly some Christians would hold to the "premillenial" view espoused by the likes of Lindsey, but look for that chain of events to occur far into the future, once technology was restored to a 1980s level around the globe. More Christians would perhaps adopt the amillenial view held by mainline and Reformed Protestants, that allows for a literal return of Christ but not for a literal Antichrist, world government, 3 1/2 years of destruction, mark of the beast, et al. BrianD 20:49, January 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Is the one world government concept that central to most of that theology? That surprises me a little - after all, there were millenial movements long before the 20th century, and therefore long before a world government was even a remote possibility. But admittedly I'm not very well versed in that (i'm Lutheran, and we almost never focus on such things). But scanning through WP's list of theories, it seemed that a post-tribulationist worldview could easily accomodate the world war. The war would certainly fit my idea of a Tribulation, anyhow. Another thought I had: the Cold War system, which taken together encompassed most of the world, could replace a single world government in the conceptual framework.
 * Anyway, I was mostly raising the question because I want to explore the idea of local religious centers; the specific theology involved is important, but could probably be glossed over. (And it might indeed be a smart idea to gloss over it: I'm already afraid I've offended people here.) Benkarnell 23:10, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

The world government view is predominant in the thinking of many premillenial, pre-tribulation folks. But this isn't really the place for that discussion; I agree with you on that. Back on topic: many people would look to some form of religion or spirituality to help them get through the crisis, and would flock to surviving centers, such as the ones you mentioned. I also wonder if there would be a rise in atheism or agnosticism, and communities based on humanist ideology. Along with new, post-DD sects (like Lincolnism) becoming influential in larger survivor nations; nations based on a particular interpretation of a religion (the NOI-based state of Anderson); and the few communities based on the post-DD TL equivalents of Marshall Applegate and David Koresh. BrianD 00:08, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * In case you guys didn't know, you might want to check out the article because it needs a lot of work.  Mitro 03:10, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

Possible First Contact
Is there any idea when the CA Medical Staging Point at Lowestoft was founded?? I ask cos Lowestoft is about 37 miles away from Woodbridge where my survivor nation has its capital. Thus Lowestoft might serve as a useful point of first contact between the CA and Woodbridge Verence71 21:00, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Adopting Mexico
Per Mitro's suggestion elsewhere on the talk page, I've contacted Guinesscap on his talk page, requesting his permission to adopt Mexico. I want to retain the established history, while further developing the country page. I have ideas for Mexico's involvement in Texas, the southwest, and the south US, as well as for American refugee influence in its culture and politics, but would like his permission and blessing. BrianD 21:10, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Graphics / Visualization /Cartography
Section Archives: Page 1

New World Map
Due to size, the discussion for the new world map has been moved here: File talk:World83DD v1.2.PNG. Mitro 17:57, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * We really need to get this finished. The old map is way to out of date.  Mitro 03:03, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

Victoria Flag
The Citizen's Congress currently going on now will eventually propose that the government of Victoria adopt a federal system in order to provide regional autonomy. As this is a huge change it will basically require a huge ammendment to the Victorian constitution. With the addition of US territory and a new direction for the country, the government will take proposals for a new national flag and hold a referrendum on which flag to adopt. I have a few choices I've come up with and would love some other contributions. The only thing I wasn't able to do with the new flag choices that I wanted to do was incorporate some british elements. The color is all I was able to keep for that. I've got the red, white, and blue representing both british and american origins, the maple leaf denoting the canadian origins, and the 7 stars which will represent the 7 provinces. If you want to contribute it doesn't have to look anything like the ones I've made or incorporate any of the elements, as long as it looks good and is representative of the country.--Oerwinde 11:54, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

I most like the current flag, but I guess that's just the Anglophile in me. If you really want to change it, I'd say go with number 3. --DarthEinstein 21:19, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well its a referrendum so if the concensus is to keep the current flag, thats what it will be.--Oerwinde 21:42, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

I also really like the current flag but it should have an element of the American in it. Maybe a burger.... Bob 12:18, January 9, 2010 (UTC) I have made a flag myself Bob 13:10, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

I like the fifth option the best. Is it ok if I add one of those slick polls to the discussion page? --Yankovic270 15:31, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Which flag should Oerwinde use for Victoria? Current Flag Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Added another one inspired by Mumby's--Oerwinde 10:40, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

New Britain Flag
There has been a small piece of controversy about my decision to alter the flag. For that reason I call this competition. You can add whatever you like, so long as it fits into the nation. Britishness and African culture, remember, the defining aspects of New Britain. Bob 18:03, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Current flag Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

The new flag - the Union Jack with green and gold and a lion in the center - is simply a good flag. It's dynamic and distinctive. Even if the symbolism gets a bit dodgy (the original meaning, a blend of England and Scotland, gets lost with the color change), it just has a very strong visual impact. Benkarnell 14:35, January 19, 2010 (UTC) With Scotland, England, and Ireland long gone from British control, the symbolism of the colors doesn't really matter that much anymore.Oerwinde 08:43, January 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, added a variation of my own. The gold and black tend to alternate as the third pan-african color depending on where you look.--Oerwinde 08:51, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we please stop adding new flags to existing polls. Every time that happens the votes reset and we have to vote all over again. Mitro 17:30, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Creating A Flag
Now that Bentwaters/Woodbridge is canon it seems that it should have a flag however I'm no good at the graphics jiggery-pokery. If I gave the idea of what I would want it to look like could someone make it for me?? Verence71 16:13, January 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I went and made one before fully reading this line. So yeah, let me know what you want it to look like I'll see what I can do. In the meantime this is what I came up with.

Strangely enought that's more or less what I had in mind with one minor alteration. Instead of having Bentwaters-Woodbridge in the scroll I was thinking of having the nation's motto ie Strength Through Adversity which translates into Latin as Vires Per Adversum. It also occurs to me that the shield and scroll could also act as the nation's Coat of Arms. If you're able to sort that out could you be so kind as put the flag and CoA into the nation infobox??

Verence71 19:26, January 23, 2010 (UTC)



Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

Missing editors
The recent editing of got me thinking: what happens when an editor goes missing? Lets face it, we all feel the tug of "real life" which causes us to spend time away from here. I think a problem, however, arises when those absences become permanent and when those editors are caretakers of several articles. What should we do if someone else wants to add to it? Mitro 00:03, January 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * At some point you have to determine that the missing editor is either unable, or unwilling, to continue work on his/her article. When you do this is the question. Less than one month is jumping the gun; but if you wait six months, and the editor still hasn't spoken his/her peace, you're holding up the timeline and potentially preventing other editors from being able to develop their work. The one thing that new editors must do is adhere (within reason) to canon, including what's been previously established that doesn't conflict with the timeline. It shows that this timeline is a collaborative effort, not the work of one person, and shows respect for other editors' work (and in turn sets a precedent that ensures their own work will stand). BrianD 00:26, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * We should have an "Article up for adoption" template, similar to the timeline one. So if an editor decides they don't want to work on that article anymore, they can add the template and it gives anyone carte blanche to go at it.Oerwinde 03:44, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

i'll adopt Brazil, if no one objects. HAD 20:37, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need a template. As Ben once said to me, this place is supposed to be about having fun and we shouldn't require people to wade through a lot of red tape. Still I think Brian made a good point. If the guy has been gone for a reasonable period of time (6 months seems long to me, I like 3), we should allow another editor to adopt the article. My one reccomendation is that we at least require the adopting editor to try to contact the missing editor first.
 * Also HAD I don't think anyone would object to you adopting Brazil. Mitro 20:55, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

I like Mitro's suggestions, especially as I am thinking about adopting an article myself. I also have no objections to HAD adopting Brazil. BrianD 21:01, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

I to concur with Mitro and have no objections to HAD adopting Brazil --GOPZACK 21:04, January 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, especially for major countries like Brazil and Mexico, it's unrealistic to expect them to stay untouched forever when the caretakers stop actively contributing. I agree that the original caretaker should definitely be contacted first - it's common courtesy - and be given maybe a week to reply before you go tearing into the page. And their original work should of course be treated as canon (but that goes without saying :)).
 * I'm mostly still waiting for somebody to tackle Australia and New Zealand. We still know very little about either country. I wouldn't want to write anything without at least reading some books on the topic, which I haven't ever done. Someday, maybe. Benkarnell 23:53, January 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've dabbled with the ANZC in the past. It always seemed to me to be more of a community project, with most of the editors adding something here and there.BrianD 00:12, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * So does anyone object if I draft a guideline that we discussed? Mitro 03:05, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1 • Page 2

Fairmont Whiskey Company
I have three questions to ask:

1. Is anyone from West Virginia and presumably able to survive Doomsday?

2. Would you like to be the millionaire CEO of a sucessful Post-DD whiskey company?

3. If so, then what is your actual birth name (not username) or a variation of it?

--Yankovic270 23:03, January 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * You're better off making up someone. BrianD 00:26, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

Travels in the Southwest
I've written a blurb on a travel narrative that surfaced in Hawaii in the late 80s from an unknown North American source. My goal is to offer a glimpse into minor, unofficial contacts between the regions that passed under the radar of officialdom, and look at how people got their information in that period. Please read and critique. Benkarnell 06:04, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff. Is this legit, though, and where exactly did the author go?BrianD 04:10, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's as legit as anything in that genre can be: fact and fiction are probably quite liberally interspersed, but there's useful stuff in there for people experienced in extracting it. Assuming there is a single author, he could be anywhere - languishing in a Bay Area prison - living out a quiet retirement - reigning over a Sierra Nevada clan as its king - dead. He seems like the kind of person who could end up in unexpected places ;). Benkarnell 23:21, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

I wonder though where he went in the book: what else is there, other than the Navajo Nation?BrianD 23:24, January 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Small places: villages, farmsteads, and of course large regions with no permanent residents, just nomads. Most of them gone by now, although not all of them. I don't think that the Navajo Nation is in the book. In its modern form, it was reconstituted in 1989; the book was (probably) written in 1988. And if "Davis" had written about a thriving republic in Navajo country, Ozzie-Kiwi explorers would probably have looked for it. Davis' book is a fairly typical example of travel narratives of the time: exciting and based in some truth, but not very helpful as a guidebook for future travelers. Benkarnell 14:44, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Did "Davis" then travel Arizona and New Mexico? And, when you read this what would you find that had a base in actual fact? BrianD 00:29, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous discussion
Archives: Page 1

List of Wikipedia articles for hurricanes affecting 1983:DD North American and Caribbean nations
This is assuming that the hurricanes would have happened in TTL as they did in OTL. BrianD 06:27, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_hurricanes
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Texas_hurricanes_%281980-present%29
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Florida_hurricanes_%281975-1999%29
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_Carolina_hurricanes_%281980%E2%80%93present%29
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Maryland_and_Washington,_D.C._hurricanes_%281980%E2%80%93present%29
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Delaware_hurricanes
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_England_hurricanes
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canada_hurricanes
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_South_America_tropical_cyclones


 * Thank you Brian. I spent all day building a raw data base -- cut and paste -- of articles and paragraphs of all the storms (except the South American ones) that you listed.  I am going to paste the raw data as a "proposal" for the time being.  Here's the link: http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Hurricanes_%281983:_Doomsday%29


 * Weather patterns were definitely affected by the war, which is why we've already got the page.  I'm not sure whether that would make hurricanes more or less frequent, or more or less severe.  But they definitely should not happen in the time, place, and manner as in OTL - the blasts and their aftermath had too great an effect on temperatures, etc. Benkarnell 15:09, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Utah and Oil
Utah may actually enter the Doomsday world with working oil industry. Its not there now, but in 1983 there was an oil refinery in roosevelt, 150+ miles east and two major mountain ranges away (one running north-south, the other East west) from the nearest nuke. in OTL the refinery went bankrupt because of the low quality of the oil. in this TTL, I could see it becoming a major industry, and perhaps with people going to the effort to conquer the oil shale--- which was possible in 1983, but not economically feasible. with a low source of oil and a large amount of machinary that would become availible with more fuel, the post DD-Industry might be started, though it appears that all of Utah's neighbor's except Dinetah already have oil (west texas, NAU). Desert viking (this was just recently added to the archives by DV, moved here by me to create discussion, Mitro 05:17, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
I am considering writting an article on Hunter S. Tompson, but first I need to know if he's alive. Riley.Konner 09:47, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

I looked Hunter Thompson up, and he committed suicide on February 20, 2005. He was apparently living near Woody Creek, Colorado, near Aspen in 1983. He went to Granada to cover the unrest and "invasion" in late 1983 (after DD). Check with the time line and such to see what the situation was in and around Aspen in September of 1983. Thompson was a recluse by then, but began to write again for Playboy and the San Francisco Examiner, both of which would be either defunct or unreachable from a secluded writer for years to come. It is possible that Thompson could have been a player in local politics in the region -- IF Woody Creek survived Doomsday.SouthWriter 18:31, January 21, 2010 (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.

India articles
I added information on Khalistan and Operation Red Blood which was blank before that. Any ratification problem --MC Prank 15:25, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you link to the page? Benkarnell 05:56, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/India_(1983:_Doomsday), here. --MC Prank 07:21, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * See also Republic of Khalistan (1983: Doomsday) and . Mitro 03:22, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * For Red Blood, why did India attack Arunachal Pradesh first? Wouldn't it make sense to first go after areas that are adjacent to UIP lands? Come to think of it, I thought the UIP was a pretty decentralized body for getting the different areas to agree with each other. How is it finding so much military success all of a sudden?  One success (Sikkim) seems OK.  But this step-by-step reconquest seems to be flying by awfully easily.  Benkarnell 02:58, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

It is easier to conquer Arunachal Pradesh as it borders the UIP from both sides, that is, if you have seen the map. Yeah, I realised my mistake. Now I'll Limit Red Blood to just Arunachal Pradesh and The current UIP members form a federal country. First, it stabilizes over a course of time and then goes on to re-claiming the break-away states. You were right this success was just too easy considering UIP just a provisional body. --MC Prank 16:26, November 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * Even with the changes, it seems to be too much, too fast. That's two national governments completely wiped out in two months.  I'm sure they were far from being stable, modern powers, but then, India's UIP isn't very stable or modern either.  (EDIT) Also, wouldn't Manmohan Singh be a citizen of Khalilstan and not the President of India?   Benkarnell 13:23, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Manmohan Singh was the Governor of RBI, India's central bank in 1982, before that he taught at the Universty of Delhi, and also worked for the Foreign & Finance Ministries so there's a lot of chance that he could try to unify India OTL. And you must be knowing that all sikhs dont live in just Punjab. --MC Prank 16:20, December 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, of course. But Manmohan is from Punjab - in fact, his birthplace is now part of Pakistan.  But either way, your point makes sense.  If Manmohan was involved with the federal Indian government before 1983, he probably is part of the UIP today.  Benkarnell 19:03, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

LON Authority for Space Operations
To bring forward the issue of spaceflight (and in a larger frame more global themes in 1983: Doomsday) i propose the canonization of the LoN - Authority for Spatial Operations, situated in Kourou and established by the TSAR treaty in January 2009. Aiming at coordinating and supervising spacfaring and realted activities worldwide in the signing and ratifiying states.

A frame I worked out now, some details are needed (site for ANZC launch site... etc. I already tried to refer to what I found in other articles, but not sure if got everything. Harmonizing with League of Nations and other pages will be done if approved.

Thanks for your help and comments.--Xi&#39;Reney 19:01, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Before Doomsday the US was a major force in Space exploration but with the US gome the only two countries that have the recourses ar the SSS and ANZC and theres another thing how are these governmants going to justify a space program when people in meny parts ofthe world have medievel living standerds --Owen1983 19:07, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * You know what Owen, this is one of the few times I have to agree with you. Space exploration in all likelihood will be a low priority even among the first world nations.  Mitro 19:15, November 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * My intention is definitely not bringing any moon mission into DD. Any ambitious space program Would sound like Science fiction. I am mainly thinking about practical focus, e.g. satellite starts for reestablishing communications and/or meteorological/reconaissance purposes, maybe a GPS-like system in a timeframe roughly 2009...more economical than rebuilding vast terrestrial infrastructure once you get a functioning rocket system back to work. --Xi&#39;Reney 22:03, November 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * This is true, we take satellites so much for granted nowadays that we forget just how much the Space Race has benefited society. If you can just get a satellite up there, it is much easier to use it to communicate, instead of building miles and miles of land lines.  nd then there are the public safety benefits that come from being able to see hurricanes and the like when they're still out in the middle of the ocean.  Benkarnell 23:40, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * Satelites make sense, my concern though was for more ambitios space exploration designs I have been seeing pop up on certain articles. One proposal suggested that an American survivor state could make it back to the moon sometimes in the 2010s.  Mitro 00:13, November 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * Where is that page? Benkarnell 00:52, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * It was on the proposal, but Riley has removed it but has kept the space exploration which still seems unlikely IMO for such a nation.  Mitro 03:11, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

I could see Virginia starting a space program. Considering what kind of nation Virginia is, the space prgram could have started as an unexpected side effect of missile research. --Yankovic270 03:21, November 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, this is an old proposal but it's good that it waited so long. The Alaska paragraph can now be brought into line with what we now know about that conflict.... whatever that is.  Benkarnell 19:03, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

New British elections
British elections coming up! Bob 20:23, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * See 2009 Realm of New Britain General Election (1983: Doomsday) for the article in question. Mitro 03:09, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the Anglo-Africans just continue parties popular among them, such as the Progressive Federal Party, instead of copying British parties for no apparent reason? --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 14:04, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * We've already noted that British people from the UK came to New Britain. Many of these people would have been politicians, with a collapsing government and civil disorder, when an existing stable party community arrives, it only makes sense that they would take root and stabilise political aggravations. Bob 13:09, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh sure, that make sense. It's the Anglo-Africans I'm talking about however. Why would they conform to a model identical to the one previously used in Britain and forget everything about their own political history? Especially given the fact that they form the majority of the population, that just doesn't make sense to me. Also, given the fact that South Africa used a system of proportional representation and I've never heard of any country that moved from a proportional system to a district system as rigid as the British one (correct me if I'm wrong on this though), my estimate is New Britain would definitely have more than just two to three political parties. You may even want to spice things up by adding an ethnic Xhosan party, openly supportive of KwaXhosa. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 14:38, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing is I've put in alot of information into the table but it doesn't come up. Can anyone help? Bob 11:34, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

There would be a large Xhosa population, given NB's location. But Karsten, a couple things: South Africa's state collapsed and there was a lot of population displacement, so it's plausible that NB wouldn't resemble South Africa too closely. Though since most people would be used to a PR government, I would expect them to keep that. Benkarnell 18:23, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

I think kertens got a good point a political parties should reflect the ethnic diversity in NB --Owen1983 18:46, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Bob 16:38, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there would be an "Afrikaans National Party" in New Britain. The history suggests that most Afrikaaners were replaced by Anglo-Africans.  Mitro 02:59, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

This is another very, very old proposal. Bob, have you thought about Karsten's point about a PR system? Benkarnell 19:08, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

A PR system allows more parties more seats. This leads to weaker governments and less control. The government will spend more more time bickering than getting things done. This is precisely what New Britain doesn't need. Bob 17:54, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that your own personal politics or what the people of NB decided? The British refugees come from a country with a long history of being under a PR system.  South Africa where NB is located, has one as well.  It seems implausible that these people would forget centuries of political history and try a whole new system.  Mitro 19:11, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Article on Soviet Alaska created by Vlad. Mitro 03:10, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to be annoying and stubborn, but. As I was re-reading the Authority for Space Operations page, I was reminded of another reason to at least be careful before we reject this page: the idea of a Soviet Alaska - and of some sort of Soviet-ANZUS conflict - has been embedded in the TL for some time. It's not quite as bad as the Panama issue, but it's still significant. I'm not sure how many pages we would have to look over and change if we now decide that there are not, and never have been, any Soviets in Alaska. Benkarnell 17:01, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you're fighting for the article to stay,I really am and I would be too, it's just that I can't come up with such a solid reason to still have it as canon.--Vladivostok 19:21, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd really rather not think of it that way. This canon issue, really, is what bothered me from the time that Alaska's existence was most recently questioned. We started having proposals and canon for a reason. We, as writers, were tired of not knowing what was "real" within the universe of 1983DD. With a system of canon/QSS, you can be assured that what is written down is a "fact", and write freely based on that assurance. It's like a pile of bricks, where every new item rests on what came before it. When we start bringing long-established facts into question, like Panama and now Alaska, it's like reaching into the pile and pulling out a brick that's 4 or 5 rows down. It doesn't affect just that one item, it also will move the ones resting on top of it. The details of the Alaskan Autonomous Oblast or Territory or what-have-you were not fleshed out until very recently, but the existence of a Soviet Alaska, and of some kind of ate 80s/early 90s conflict over it, have been part of the body of knowledge for a long time. The August world map includes it. (Yes, I know I also had a couple of non-canonical bits on that map, especially South Africa. But the Alaskan situation was not mine; it was based on material that had already been discussed and accepted.) I'll repeat that I have no idea how many pages that bit of information is currently affecting. Definitely the George Bush article, for one. But we are going to make a /lot/ of unpleasant work for ourselves if we get in the habit of debating and changing stuff that we agreed on already. Benkarnell 19:55, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you Ben. When I came here I was working with previously established data and this removing of Alaska from canon was somewhat surprising to me. But now I seriously have doubts in the plausibility of Alaska. Back when Alaska and Socialist Siberia were made, more than half the articles we have just didn't exist. And Alaska wasn't really an issue, since there were no articles covering the area, except the ones established, it was regarded as the best option. But now, after fleshing out Siberia and the surrounding area, people started to take notice at a few of the flaws associated with the article. And so it had to be changed. I'm not saying we should just go and rewrite everything,I'm just saying that we should try to work out some of the inconsistencies from past articles, as well as be watchful of new articles.--Vladivostok 20:59, November 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * So Vlad, what do you want specifically to do with the page? Could we have a shrunken A.A.T. - the Alaska Peninsula, the land around Bethel, and the St. Lawrence, Aleutian, and Nunavak Islands, maybe? Benkarnell 13:39, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well,I'd hate to see all of the page just marked obsolete, a shrunken Autonomous Territory would work best. I just don't know anymore what the reason behind annexing the land could be. Maybe the small skirmishes led to smaller places joining the Socialist Union, that could be plausible.--Vladivostok 21:35, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

I changed a couple of things in the article to maybe make it a bit more palatable, basically making the territory smaller and generally toning it down a bit. Comments are welcome.--Vladivostok 21:09, December 13, 2009 (UTC)


 * Ben and Vlad... in no way did I want to insult anyone, his work, established canon or defying the QSS out of sheer egoism...sorry if it appeared that way. I was getting a bit fierce in the discussion because I felt Siberia a bit too large for my taste in the situation...

As I am reading back into doomsday once more I seem ro find so many flaws in fundamental, though small things...caused by me or other early contributors writing more "for fun" and not with timeline/canon coherency in mind...and we are now left puzzling what to do..not to tear down not only 3 or for rows of brick but a whole wall of the 83DD house...a dificult issue on the small line between easy-fun-writing and serious-logical alternate-world-building ...--Xi&#39;Reney 00:04, January 12, 2010 (UTC) Okay, so, does anyone object to the size proposed in the article now? I was thinking of making it canon in the next few days, to give any objectors some time--Vladivostok 21:23, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I like what you added about Americans being unhappy with Siviet rule. It makes more sense than a buch of Alaskans suddenly realizing they really like Communism. Is this what you have in mind for the current size of Soviet Alaska? Benkarnell 23:38, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that would be exactly what I had in mind. The only problem is the main map of Siberia, because I don't know which program was used to make it, otherwised I would have tried to update it along the way. If you Ben, or anyone else, knows how it was made, feel free to tell me.--Vladivostok 06:41, January 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't even edit .svg images, but here's a somewhat crude attempt to make a .png for Hellerick's map. I assumed in both of my maps that St. Lawrence Island would be part of the DMZ. Now do you think the USSR still claims all of Alaska, or does it consider the Sitka Accord to be a permanent division? Benkarnell 16:16, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain why Siberia doesn’t control Nome and the Seward Peninsula? You can literally see across the Bering Strait to Alaska from here. Plus from what I read families living here still have connections to those living across the strait in Siberia. It seems weird that Siberia would control territory that far south but not something that was just across the border. Also just a small thing to keep in mind. This region is one of the few left in America where indigenous peoples still form the majority. Not sure if that would affect the article in any way, but its worth mentioning.--ShutUpNavi 16:54, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was only Sarah Palin's house ;-). Anyway, I based the map on Vlad's description, and I htink he based that off of my sugggestion, which was made fairly randomly, certainly not based on any knowledge of the area. Nome and the Seward Peninsula, from the sound of it, might be the first part of Alaska to come under Russian influence... at the same time, that would give the USSR complete control of the Bering Strait and might have been unacceptable to the American and Ozzie/Kiwi governments. The skirmishes in Alaska were, after all, the "last battles of the Cold War" and might have resulted in some territory transfer. Maybe the thing to do is to re-enact the fighting of '87 in our minds and determine the most likely geographic situation at the time of the cease-fire. Benkarnell 17:20, January 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Why would be the Siberian control of the Bering Strait unacceptable to the Americans and Australasians? It's not like they have real interest in the Arctic region. In contrast, the Siberians would prefer to keep the Straits controlled and closed to ensure the safety of its unprotected, vast northern seashores. --Grand Prince Paul II. 17:46, January 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * I was only making a suggestion. The Free State of Alaska does have an Arctic coastline, and maybe wanted access to it from the Pacific. If the region around Nome does end up Soviet, maybe the Sitka Accord mandated that American ships have free access through the strait. Benkarnell 19:11, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I kind of took your advice literally Ben, without consulting a map beforehand. Well, perhaps there was more focus by the APA and the ANZC to secure the strait, rather than the southern shore? Or perhaps they presured the Siberians to relinquish control of that part of Alaska because they wanted to keep a close eye on Siberia? That certainly would be a plausible explanation, since I really haven't stated why the lines were drawn like this in the Sitka Accord.--Vladivostok 19:53, January 19, 2010 (UTC)




 * How about this one? (I'm also learning to use textures.) ANZUS forces attacked Soviet positions from the southeast. The negotiated border and DMZ follows the 160th meridian, plus some rivers and mountain ridges. Some of the Aleutians are also demilitarized. Benkarnell 16:28, January 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * That looks much better. I really like that map. I think the page is quite plausible right now.--ShutUpNavi 17:48, January 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree it does look more realistic and the whole texture thing looks great. The only thing that I'm not quite sure about is the whole demilitarized islands thing. How does that work? No one lives their now, it's controlled by both forces? Administered by the LoN now perhaps?--Vladivostok 21:48, January 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * The way I see it, a demilitarized zone is "no man's land" where no troops are allowed. In the Anderson-Toccoa War, the Piedmont Republic set up a DMZ which included several inhabited towns. These areas were off limits to the troops of either the Andersonians or the Toccoans, but were patrolled by the Piedmontians. I think that the LoN might have to have some peace-keeping troops on these islands to keep both sides "honest."


 * As much as I hate Alaska having to give up land to Siberia -- especially the strait -- if Siberia did take some of Alaska, they most certainly would have come over the strait, and not by way of the islands as the previous map indicated. A quick strike at already compromised (bombed) bases on the mainland would have made sense.SouthWriter 16:03, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

I've added some new information which corresponds to the maps and the discussion above. Does anyone have any problems with graduating it now?--Vladivostok 21:54, January 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the usual procedure for governing the citizens in DMZs? I know there are neutral zones in OTL that have villages in them. This one includes some villages on the mainland of Alaska, as well as the islands: my altas shows Selawik on the northern coast and possibly Platinum at the southern, and possibly also Holy Cross in the middle. The map I made also puts the Aleutian villages of Atka, Unalaska, and Dutch Harbor into the DMZ (and I can always change that map). Maybe a "Committee for Civil Government" consisting of a representative from each village, plus an ANZ and a Soviet delegate, who each have veto power.
 * Also with this treaty pre-dating the LoN by many years, I think that both sides would be reluctant to hand the League control of the situation. If I were in charge of either side, I'd probably say "no thanks" if the League offered to take over the border. We've been handling this for 15 years, no need to change the status quo now.
 * One more thing to consider: the US had bases in the Aleutians, didn't it? Were any of them likely nuclear targets? That affects the situation there. Benkarnell 22:02, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well,the only base I could find in the Aleutians was Eareckson Air Station,which would put it in Siberian controlled territory. I like the whole DMZ government idea, but I'd think that people living in this area would leave. I mean, who would want to stay in such a place? Maybe the Siberians would push for a LoN administered DMZ now, as a sign of good faith, seeing as the Aralia campaign was quite unpopular with other nations--Vladivostok 22:20, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

The current population of Free Alaska is 50,000, but that population was set when Soviet Alaska was much larger. Now that it has been shrunken, what would the current population of Free Alaska be? Mitro 00:50, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that both populations should be larger. For example, the Siberian AAT, if we could take into account the OTL census of the year 2000, would roughly have around 30-35 thousand people. Now even if we reduce it due to the war,immigration and so on, I don't think it would be smaller than 20,000. As for Free Alaska, even though Anchorage and Juneau were destroyed, the increase in territory and the possible refugees from Canada could easily mean that the current population is well over 100,000.--Vladivostok 09:05, January 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Canadian refugees would be minimal I think. The area around alaska is very sparsely populated, and the Yukon, other than being cut off from contact with the Canadian government, would otherwise be unaffected. I also call in to question Juneau being nuked. I know its on the nuke map, but realistically the major military targets are Fairbanks and Anchorage, Juneau is an isolated tourist town of negligible population despite being the state capital. EMP would knock out communications to the town cutting it off completely from the rest of Alaska. If it was hit, it would just be killing 20,000 people for the hell of it.Oerwinde 12:01, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

i would have to agree with oerwinde. i don't think Juneau would have been nuked. the capital of vermont wasn't and neither was that of west virginia. and about the yukon: do you think there is any chance of it being part of alaska? british columbia is spilt between victoria and prince geogre, while the northwest is part of canada. so would yukon jion any of these nations, jion with alaska or remain independent? the "republic of the yukon", perhaps?HAD 12:58, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Bob. Question: would the UK manage to evacuate 900k to southern Africa? Mitro 17:37, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

answer: they couldnt becuse it would be impossible a more realistic figure would be 200 max becuse with fual souces gone and there would nned space for machinary and crops--Owen1983 17:19, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

I just started with 900k to provoke debate. I agree that it should be smaller, but 200 is a gross underestimation. Your average British ship houses and provides for men in excess of 300. I think the bar should be set about 300k and we can discuss from there. Bob 16:36, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

200 would be about right due to food been rationed and coal or diesel needed to make the journey--Owen1983 13:11, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Even if you can organise an exodus of about 200k brits to southern Africa (use cruiseliners etc. and it goes okey..) what would you do with the problems in te host nation?? food, shelter, public opinion, neigbour states reaction?? As far as imagine 200.000 of mainly white people of the "Empire" -though long gone- nearing the shore of southerm africa...a HUGE conflict potential IMO.--Xi&#39;Reney 00:32, January 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought we had nixed the whole idea of a coordinated mass evacuation of Britain - a LONG time ago. My main problem: why, why, why, why would they just up and decide to go to South Africa? They had no idea that a pro-British state was taking shape down there! South Africa may have drawn some British refugees, but I personally have huge problems with the idea of a single Moses-style exodus to New Britain. Small numbers of refugees from Britain to SA would probably have landed first at the cape, but would have found their way to New Britain eventually given the anti-White climate in Cape Town. Bob, we have been over this endlessly, month after month after month. Please stop pushing for it. Benkarnell 19:26, January 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have altered it so its a few thousand. The government and supporting troop as well as bureaucrats and the like. The population of New Britain has increased as Brits from ANZC Celtic Alliance and other places flood into New Britain.
 * The numbers from other parts of the world would be small though. The CA and ANZC are major world powers with a large economies. Would that many people really prefer a small refugee state in chaotic Africa where most of the population is Xhosa or Anglo-African? Mitro 19:13, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe New Britain sets up a major operation to begin moving more people from mainland Britain who don't want to be a part of the Celtic Alliance, Clevelande/Northumberland/Albion, or Bentwater/Woodbridge. With a major waystation in Avalon, Guinea-Bisseau.Oerwinde 20:16, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it would depend whether they thought Bentwaters/Woodbridge would be big enough to worry about Verence71 16:20, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Here's a new proposal I cooked up. Are there any problems with this?

--Jnjaycpa 05:55, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

If you're looking for a handy Romanov this guy was a pretender/claimant to the Russian throne in 1983 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duke_Vladimir_Kirillovich_of_Russia

Verence71 11:31, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

this artle would clash with the Socialist Siberia (1983: Doomsday) articl but there might be room for it in SW Russia --Owen1983 14:35, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

As long as it stays in southwest Russia only and isn't too big (since this region was nuked fairly badly), I think that this would be fine. I look forward to its continuation. --DarthEinstein 15:21, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Not sure that Armenia and Azerbaijan would be so chummy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian-Azerbaijani_war_(1918%E2%80%931920)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh_War

Verence71 19:41, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

No one in the Caucuses is exactly chummy with each other. In fact the region is a tinderbox of ethnic-hatred and violence. Not trying to make the region look bad or anything (I hear the people are friendly and the scenery is breathtaking) but look what happened our timeline. As soon as the Soviet Union collapsed (and in some cases even before) the region immediately descended into war. Literally everyone was fighting with another ethnic group at some point or another. Given this I have to wonder how stable a region like this would be.

Now there are a few people who I could see joining (or at least tolerate) a Russian based state if things got really bad (mainly Abkhazians, Ossetians, and perhaps Armenians). Others would violently oppose such a country (Georgians, Azerbaijanis, and Chechens). Given this I think sutch a state could work out, but it would need to be revised. Also I need to see if there are any major targets in the regon outside the major cities that would get blown up.--ShutUpNavi 02:24, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

It depends how the various elements of the Federation joined. As Shutup said some parts could join of their own free will whereas others, such as Georgia could be forced to join at gunpoint

Verence71 12:48, December 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this page needs a little more before it can graduate. There are lots of questions here, including what nations it is in contact with.  Although I suppose we could graduate the article and simply recognize that there is some kind of federation there, leaving the details for later.  Benkarnell 22:15, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

this is the basic idea for a survior society in china-- very open to suggesting at this point.
 * It's wickedly dystopian, along the lines of Thunder Bay and aspects of Superior's history - I like it. I don't know enough about Chinese history or culture to say whether it's a realistic Chinese dystopia, though. It also seems quite large - I'm wary of creating large survivor states in China before we nail down more of its history. Benkarnell 22:11, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

yea, the size kind of bothers me, though its sparcely populated--I think. I'm kind of hoping that this will start chineese history for this TL-- when I went through this site for the first time, the abscence of any information on China after DoomsDay stuck out like a sore thumb. As far as I can tell, China was suprise attacked by the USSR, which caused a total government breakdown. A coastal few towns seem to have survived, as they are mentioned in tiawan's article, but under the impression there is no larger (or at least better) civilization in the interior. Some stuff on the edges has been claimed by the USSR, but they have simply stayed away from going farther south into manchuia--implying it not worth it due to the state of things. China has a history of major Civil wars (all of the most deadly conflicts of the last two hundred years are european conflicts or chinese civil wars), and they have a history of war lords. As for Chinese culture, my idea is that the culture was in flux at that point, and Hong Long (the emperor) got rid of those who opposed it. but I do think it could be smaller are you thinking population (its at about a twentieth or less of what the area would be now) or land holdings?Desert viking 05:33, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Article I created. --Fero 18:26, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Khanate of Aralia
Shouldn't we make this at least an article? NewsHour referred to it, and hence it is automatically valid, right? I just want a "green light" to make the article. :) Edward Hannis 01:56, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing is automatically valid when it comes to 1983: Doomsday. Please read the for a better explanation. Also you might want to talk to User:Jpsarmento who was the one who wrote the headline in the first place. Mitro 01:58, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that, sorry. I simply made the wrong assumption that NewsHour was only based on things that were true without change (permanent), that hence the Khanate existed for sure. I guess I was wrong. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 02:38, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi,answering your question,yes,i think we should make an article on the Khanate of Aralia but i'm new here so i guess i'll need some help Jpsarmento 1:11,January 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Created page (Khanate of Aralia (1983: Doomsday)) Edward Hannis  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 00:05, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * CANONIZATION:The khanate is more or less completed, and there is little more to say, taken the fact that it is now part of Socialist Siberia (if canonized). I think it should be canonized. Any objections? Edward Hannis  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 17:52, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about creating a country like this in the past. Anyways I like most of what you have so far. Just a few things I would like to sort out. First off there might have been a target here. On Vozrozhdeniya Island (in the middle of the Aral Sea) there was a major bioweapons laboratory located here. This would make it among the highest priority targets in the Soviet Union. However as it was top secret I don’t know if anyone outside the Soviet Union even knew about its existence at the time. As the island is in the middle of nowhere if it got nuked it wouldn’t affect the sounding area that much (although it might irradiate parts of the Aral Sea). If it did survive I wonder what Aralia would do with the bioweapons. Perhaps use them against Siberia?

Also where did you get the name Aralia? Did you make it up or is it a real name? And why isn’t the city of Nukus part of this country? Finally I would like to point out that the region in the south of the sea is called Karakalpakstan. The majority of the people living here aren’t ethnic Uzbeks but Karakalpaks. They have a diferent language and culture than ordanary Uzbeks (infact some say they are closer related to Kazakhs, which makes this page even more beleaveable). I think they should be mentined as they would make up the majority of the population in this courntry.

Overall I like this page. You need to run this page by User:Vladivostok who manages the Soviet Siberia article before anything else just so he knows whats going on. However onece the issues I adressed are taken care of I would press this article for canonization.--ShutUpNavi 23:36, January 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have bounced this off of Vladivostok, and he helped me making the article. In response to the missile base, I was unaware of its existence, but the USSR would not attack it because the Aral sea belonged to the USSR (and the USSR would not attack itself, of course). I guess that means that the Khanate may have weapons like that. In response to the name issue, it is named after the Aral sea (Aralia). In response to the problem with Nukus not part of the nation, I'll change that really quickly without a problem. In response to the Karakalpaks, I'll mention them. Anyhow, I appreciate the help. Edward Hannis  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 02:00, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well...of course the USSR would not attack the base, its their freaking base. But wouldn't the US target the base during Doomsday? Mitro 02:04, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * The base was top secret. Top-top secret. It is unlikely the US would know about it, and anyways it was a laboratory with a few rockets, but no launchers or anything, so it wasn't much of a risk... Edward Hannis  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 02:50, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

Even if the base was still standing, I hardly find it to be a problem to take over. Who would maintain them? The war would still be ongoing, since a relatively small nation wouldn't pose a significant threat. I also don't think that such a large population is really realistic, perhaps a slightly smaller one, around 750,000 maybe?--Vladivostok 14:42, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

I'm ending the War of Aralia now. Siberians would win with a certain degree of ease. Edward Hannis  21:32, January 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * When I think of the Aral Sea, the first thing I think of is "desertification". What has the ecology of the lake been like since the end of Soviet rule? With no Soviet infrastructure, did some of the water come back?
 * I like that the Khanate was not wiped out. The USSR is probably not able to administer Aral directly yet, and asserting its suzerainty is probably all it cared about. It opens up an interesting possibility: are there other "disorganized territories" in central Asia - other de facto independent states that the USSR has forced to acknowledge some sort of Soviet overlordship? Benkarnell 22:21, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * For now I don't think that the current borders, excluding Aralia, would house such an arrangement. Perhaps later on,further to the west, we'll see something similar to this develop.--Vladivostok 22:24, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Federation of Greece
Awhile back I decided to have the CoG host a referendum on whether to tighten the power of the "central" government and make the nations come together into a Federation. Well, it was supposed to be New Year's Eve, 2009, and I suppose the time's come to write an article on the Confederation of Greece becoming the Federation of Greece. Now the CoG's page will become obsolete and I'll create a new article. Though one problem is; will I have to go back and now change every mention of the "Confederation" to "Federation", or only from henceforth when Greece is being mentioned say "Federation"? Mr.Xeight 01:01, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would think that you would only need to change things that refer to them in the present. Anything that happened in the past would continue to reference the Confederation, as thats what it was then, mentions in foreign relations and such would need to be changed.--Oerwinde 08:54, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Oer. Mr.Xeight 16:25, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, if the referendum was just a couple weeks ago, the new government won't poof! into existence right away. There will have to be new elections, and all that.  Check out the transition process from US history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_the_Confederation.  It took a couple of months. Benkarnell 19:41, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Aragonese Statelet(s)
I don't think I've ever told anyone this before, but I'm a bit of an "Aragonophile", reading most articles pertaining to Aragon and its colonies on the Il Bethisad site, and I've read some article on the kingdom, empire, crown, and language on Wikipedia. I was wondering, would at all be possible to create an Aragonese Statelet somewhere in the Huesca Valley or any other Aragonese speaking area? I'd personally make it a crowned republic, only because I'm partial monarchies, a person can rise to the top in this topsy-turvy world, and because we all know, monarchies are fun! The only thing I'm picturing at the moment is that there would be an upsurge in the Aragonese language and a man who survived the Apocalypse and became the dictator making Aragon into a crowned republic taking power for himself. Is this okay to do? Mr.Xeight 01:01, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

The would suit me perfectly. Mr.Xeight 01:03, January 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * According to the Spain page, it looks like most of the area is under the control of the Iberian Confederation.--Oerwinde 09:45, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

IMHO the argonese speaking people are going to want there own place and i think Mr.Xeight has a good idea --Owen1983 14:14, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Owen, Aragonese nationalism is almost dead. The Chunta Aragonesista would have to implement Aragonese back into society and eventually their plan of making Aragonese the most widely-spoken language would take awhile. It no doubt have to be forced to be spoken and taught at school, used for business, as a ecclesiastical language, etc until the people in the area who don't use it at home start to. Oer, I noticed that last night. Through the innacurate use of eyeballing, by the looks of it Zaragoza, the Chunta Aragonesista's HQ and the old capital of the Aragonese Empire is not under IC control, fortunately, though a good chunk of northern & western Aragon is, unfortunately. So, I suppose the CA (I'm too lazy to write out Chunta Aragonesista each time) could offer a stable government in Zaragoza, using Aragonese nationalism and the failure of the Castillian Government to take care of its people to get them control. Eventually they'd expand and this is where I can become most useful...
 * Power-struggles make strange bedfellows. You guys can all clearly tell as all-knowing gods of this alt-universe Greece is as land-hungry as Sicily. So, the Greeks could begin to look west for control. Now they see the Aragonese State, in-power, but vulnerable. So a partnership begins: Greeks and Aragonese working together to save Europe and Iberia. Now Aragon would be able to resist becoming a satellite-state of Greece, though Aragon becomes smiliar to Algeria, siding with Greece over Sicily and getting small-scale Greek aid, as well as Greece to recognize it as a sovereign nation, saying Aragon has right to the lands controlled by the IC, helping to stablize its control over any fringe lands, such as the coast, and an upsurg ein Greek merchants in the western port-cities.

Mr.Xeight 16:24, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Another possibility is that the Iberian confederation is an alliance of several Juntas in the region. Maybe an extremely nationalistic Junta joins the confederation, and maneuvers its way into the lead role, instituting some changes to the confederation including Aragonese as the national language. The IC was mainly formed to defend against Basque invasion, and they are less of a threat now, so the IC could be somewhat unstable at this point, nothing much has been written about it after 1997 except that it added a new Aragonese Junta in 2007. So this could be perfect. It looks like almost half of the confederation is Aragonese, so this could be plausible. Tristanbreiker is responsible for the corresponding articles though so you'd have to get his sayso I suppose. Zaragoza was hit according to the spain page so I don't think it would be a major hotbed of Aragonese nationalism, though it would be ripe for reclaimation.--Oerwinde 19:21, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's truly a great idea, Oer. Thanks alot! :) I'll run it by Tristan. A bombing of Zaragoza puts a rather damper on things though. But one of the most important things I need to do is look up the presidents of the Chunta Aragonesista, of course there's no doubt whoever was Pres. of the party at the time was in Zaragoza, what should I do to finda suitable president? Mr.Xeight 00:32, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * What I normally do is make someone up. The Doomsday situation is going to bring out a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't have gotten into a leadership role, so if you can't find someone real, I don't see a big deal with making someone up.--Oerwinde 01:28, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Cooperstown
Upon reading of the plans for a new baseball & football hall of fame it got me thinking about Cooperstown, could a city state there be possible? (I'm not to sure what was nuked in that area so if anyone knows let me know, thanks)--GOPZACK 17:37, January 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure, Zack. I believe the assumption has been that it would be much harder to establish a surviving city state in the Northeast corridor, because of the massive amount of hits it would have taken in a US-Soviet conflict. But it certainly is open for any editor who can come up with a plausible, and interesting, scenario for New York state (or anywhere else) to do so. --BrianD 15:49, January 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Cooperstown would not have been hit, and conceivably could be a site for a survivor community because it is located on the south end of Ostego Lake. The question is how much of New York state was livable after Doomsday? I postulated that refugees were pouring into Vermont because things got hellish in NY state. --BrianD 15:49, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

I think that there could be a survivor state even when refugees left the state. In fact I think this would be a blessing in disguise for those who would undoubtably remain. There would be less people in the state, meaning less crime and less strain on food and other resources. The more the population decreases from refugees and casualties, the better chance the remainder has for survival. --Yankovic270 16:15, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

East Tennessee
Article I created for the provisional nation of east Tennessee. --BrianD 15:53, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Hattiesburg
Article I created for the provisional nation of Hattiesburg, in OTL southern Mississippi. --BrianD 15:53, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

I plan to start on the Hattiesburg and East Tennessee articles, and expand on the Blue Ridge history article, Monday. --BrianD 19:50, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

New Montgomery
Article I created for New Montgomery, in southwest Alabama.--BrianD 05:08, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

A Proposed Add on -- a bio of a rogue leader
It took be a while to figure some of the formatting out, but here is my next page. I will put a link to it from the main page when it is approved.

The picture I used is an alteration of a shot of a guy named Kai Dupe, a picture that came up when I searched photos for a "black male." I altered the picture so that the result looks like a thinner relative of his with a slightly wider nose. However, I did not seek permission (the caption said it "may" be protected), so what I need is a stock photo that is public domain. This handsome man with a graying beard captures the charisma that I see needed in this man.

I hope the bio is satisfactory. I tried to make it from a fully neutral point of view, not even mentioning the carnage and slavery that his reported to have happened under his reign! --SouthWriter 03:44, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to add the link: Find Jibril Zahur here. SouthWriter 18:12, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I've decided to change the character to a real character with real possibilities to have been in the right place to fulfill the role of my fictional one. The rogue leader is Royall Jenkins, leader of the United Nation of Islam. I set up a page for him. I hope you like it. I rewrote the takeover of Anderson to be less bloody because in OTL Jenkins is a respectable religious leader (for the most part).SouthWriter 20:33, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * So if you are using a real person this time, does that mean you have no more use for the Jibril Zahur article? Mitro 20:49, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

I'm moving the Anderson-Toccoa War to its own page
After being corrected for including the "war" tag to this section, I figured the only way the index can find this little skirmish is by making another new page. And so, I cut and pasted and am about to hit the "Save Page." Since this was once part of an approved nation page, I was not sure if I needed to put the "Proposal" notice at the top. The new page is at http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Anderson-Toccoa_War_(1983:_Doomsday)SouthWriter 03:45, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Selma
My proposal on a survivor community in Selma, Alabama.BrianD 04:03, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

A page for Kentucky President Jim Bunning --GOPZACK 23:59, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Broken Bow
GOPZACK's proposal for the survivor community of Broken Bow, Oklahoma.--BrianD 20:01, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Lake Arthur
My proposal for the survivor community of Lake Arthur, Louisiana.--BrianD 20:01, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Louisiana
My proposal for the known-only-until-now-to-locals state(s) of Louisiana.--BrianD 20:01, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Natchez
My proposal for the survivor community of Natchez, Mississippi. Bonus points for the first editor to identify the real-life counterpart to Natchez's mayor.--BrianD 20:01, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Idaho
Desert viking's proposal for the North American Union/provisional U.S. state of Idaho.--BrianD 22:58, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Nanchung
a resilient group of chinese who have built a nation around a leader in resonse to threats from the Dragon Kingdom.Desert viking 00:57, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Parthenopean Republic
So,i've done a new article.For now it's only an idea.If the Second Sicily war gets approved,i think it's pretty much likely to exist.

My article about a small town in Illinois that survived Doomsday. Mitro 00:45, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Korea
Does anyone know what happened to Korea post-1983?

General_tiu
 * It was briefly mentioned a while ago, basically all that was agreed on was that it escaped doomsday impact free, and that likely the north or the south invaded the other and there is likely a unified Korea at this point. What wasn't decided was who invaded who, what the outcome of that war was, who is in control, etc. I personally would think it likely that with US forces stationed there, and the sorry state of North Korea, fallout from china blowing into the north, etc. the south would emerge victorious. If this is the outcome, this would leave Korea as a major power in Asia, a world tech leader, and the major manufacturing power of the world with Japan going isolationist(Samsung, LG, Hyundai, Daewoo).--Oerwinde 10:14, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait Korea would be impact free? I must have missed this discussion, what would be the reasons for them both being missed? There are a lot of American forces in South Korea, seems odd that they wouldn't be targets. Mitro 17:33, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a long discussion. I think its on archive page 7. Basically, someone pointed out that Korea didn't have any nuked points on the map. This was back before the map was deemed unreliable. Someone brought up that with everything else falling apart, one of the two sides would have invaded the other and Korea would likely be unified at this point. As Neither North nor South Korea have nukes, and both are pretty much concerned only with each other, the likelyhood of either being nuked didn't seem high to me. Once the idea of a unified Korean state in an impact free zone was established, Ben piped in on how it was a good idea. Then it was archived. Not a real discussion I suppose. I don't think its unrealistic that the Koreas escape impact free, for the reasons above, but a unification war would likely be long and bloody.Oerwinde 03:56, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

especially as china is described as falling completely apart--- I would think that the fall of North Korea would happen not so much from a US/south Korean invasion as from a Chinese invasion. it also says in the siberia article that one goal of the bombing of China was to maintain soviet control in the area--- with that kind of a mentality, the one US hold on that part of the continent would recieve some sort of treatment. could a community surivive---yes. will it be a Tiawan sheltered island that rebuilds "impact free". there is going to be some blood and loss of infrastucture and some hard political descisions.

Ok, previous discussion was more like the beginning of a discussion, here is what was in the archive:

Oerwinde 21:03, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Armachedes.--Vladivostok 12:21, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those general articles. Thoughts and comments welcomed. Mitro 02:56, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

=FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES= Archive 1

''This subsection is placed to focus on things covering decisive, vital issues concerning the consistency of 1983: Doomsday as a whole and the Timeline specifically. PLease treat this section with the necessary respect and place things not belonging here below !! Comments of non-registered users will not be tolerated in this Talk section! This TL is not without flaws, and especially in the first time (me myself) a lot of things were inserted out of curiosity or not spending much time on repercussions. And due to the complexity level we have reached with 1983: Doomsday now each of these flaws might have world-spanning consequences... I will focus on identifying and eliminating those flaws/inconsistencies to strengthen the basis of the TL and prevent repercussions on the excellent contents written at all fronts. This of course in the established manner of consensus and discussions! I bring this up as a consequence of the "Canal discussion" further below with the intention keeping an eye on above mentioned things.'' Objections? --Xi&#39;Reney 22:14, November 11, 2009 (UTC)