Talk:Doomsday (1983: Doomsday)

welcome. this is an easy way to know what was nuked and/or destroyed an what was not, more easy as read the complete timeline, You can complete this, but it must coincide with the Timeline --Fero 03:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hawaii Claims

 * How much land does Hawaii claim for itself? On the Hawaii (1983: Doomsday) page I wrote that it only claims a few Pacific islands. Should I change that? Benkarnell 04:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

mmm i was read hawaii clain all US states, but maybe y read wrong, cleam our list, your hawaii article sound good, let it in your way, i suposs U know what U do --Fero 04:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC) that is me
 * Okay. The top of that page says Hawaii's the last piece of the USA. If I understand it, Hawaii thought of itself as part of the "Provisional American Government" until 1995. Then the Provisional Government ended and Hawaii officially became its own nation. It didn't claim anything outside the old State of Hawaii except a few islands. But I might have missed something too. Benkarnell 06:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In the old TL there were now further details concerning hawaii except "a few still functioning airports"... and the stop of Pres. Bush. and the deadly liftoff of Reagan.

So I suggest we leave it the way Ben described it in Hawaii profile. Even if some Hawaiians might feel as the successor of the U.S. I doubt they would be able to reinstate control over the continental US within less than a 100 years, given the fact that only 4 islands left and in the first years after DD it'S all about survival and local security, now day dreams of empire. Later on (see terrotorial dispute conclusion in 2005) they would look for Islands, especially for food resources, fishing grounds... hmmm. will have to look about ocean legislature as well.... touch--Xi&#39;Reney 07:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)ed that theme in my thesis.. :)--Xi&#39;Reney 07:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. In my mind Hawaii thinks of itself as the successor to the State of Hawaii, not the entire USA. Maybe they would want to participate in any _future_ colonization of the Mainland, but I don't think they could legitimately claim it right now. I'll make the changes, because I think we all agree. Benkarnell 23:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC) (P.S.) I think it's reasonable that Hawaii could have claimed Okinawa, but probably Australia/New Zealand would have a better claim on it. Benkarnell 23:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Question: Corcega, Javanese Empire?
Hey,,,

what country/territory is Corcega and Javanese Empire supposed to be?? :) Thinking of more details to come ? :)--Xi&#39;Reney 14:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"Head of State before doomsday list" based in | Category:Heads_of_state_by_country-wikipedia
"Head of State before doomsday list" based in | Category:Heads_of_state_by_country-wikipedia --Fero 19:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean Mr.Xeight 23:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

list of Doomsday nuked event start time
based in list of time zone Wikipedia open to help --Fero 18:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The time zones for Moscow, Beijing, Tokyo, and Sidney are wrong. — Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 07:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I used the time zone map at wikipedia. SouthWriter 04:16, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Format
Can someone imporve the format of the page? On my compute one of the list boxes is sitting on top of another. Mitro 19:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. It took longer than I expected.  I alphabetized the nuked city chart as well. SouthWriter 04:16, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Not a good idea to list all the nuked places.
I don't think it's a good idea to list all the places that got nuked. Assuming that this was a total war between the U.S and NATO vs. Russia and the Warsaw pact vs. China there would have been well over 1000 cities and military targets that would have been hit. It's totally impractical to try and list them all. Instead why don't we give a short list about how each region in all of these countries were effected?--ShutUpNavi 18:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be difficult to list ALL of them -- I think we should go along the lines of the idea that if we KNOW a place was nuked, we write it down. If we're not sure, then we should leave it until such time as it's decided that a place was nuked. Make sense? Just like QAA. Louisiannan 14:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, especially since we need to know what places are unlivable when we start creating new survivor nations in the ruins of North America and Eurasia. Mitro 14:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said elsewhere, we've handled this on a regional basis. I know where all the nukes landed in US Pacific territories, for example. This list will probably only be complete when the whole world has been fleshed out to a greater degree than it is now. [edit] A lot of this page is inaccurate anyway - somebody went through and wrote "UAR" next to a lot of incorrect places. Benkarnell 16:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When and if you add cities, be sure to insert them in alphabetical order. I found that adding a single city with adjoining columns is easier in source code than with advanced editor, but that's just me. SouthWriter 04:16, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Canada
It occur to me that a place which is both so large and have such a low density of population as Canada would require lots of largely autonomous regional government. With that, some might feel the urge to go at it alone and one such place I would propose would be the Republic of Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean in the Quebec region of the same name. With both the commercial (Montreal) and political (Quebec city) capitals probably destroyed, the survivors might have moved up north to a region which would not have attracted nukes. the survivors would have been joined by remnant of the local units of the canadian army and of the Militia. They would be opposed by the loyalist quebec government in Kuujjuaq (the largest village in the northern Quebec region of Nunavik).

Other places with self-declared states would be in Alberta (with its vast reserve of petrol) and in some First Nations reserves.

Finaly, with the goverment being up north, it might contain a lot more inuits in the public service.--Marcpasquin 15:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Plus, Ontario is almost completely decimated, yet only Ontario and Toronto where nuked? London ontario was supposed to survive, somehow, so there would be no barrier for Canada to reclaim it. I think that it would be more plausible to have a pariah state blocking the way, or maybe the russians used a "carpet bombing" tactic, purposefully using fallout and radioactive dust as a weapon.

The Unity League
I've decided to roll the nations of the Delian League-The surviving Greek islands that harkened back (in terms of their name at least) to the Golden Age of Greece. Islamic Empire of Turkey-After the secular government was nuked to death, heavily-Islamic rebels filled the void of power and created what was left of Turkey into the name above. Recently, secularism has returned to Turkey. Cyprus-The Model of the Unity League, the native Greeks, Turks, British, and Americans living on the military base there decided to put the past behind them and rebuild into quite a stable and thriving nation. I haven't worked out the details but I'm sure by 1987-1990, Greece and Turkey would be repopulated (albeit not as densely as before. Obviously the nuked areas are still off-limits) By 2000 with secularism back in Turkey, the two nations would decide it would be in their mutual benefit to form one conglomerate nation, with Cyprus following. Eastern Orthodoxy and Islam are the main religions (there really is no official), Greek and Turkish are the main languages, and the residency of the leader (I was thinking of the government having a democratically elected Emperor/Sultan, thus balancing republicanism with the old habits of imperialism of both of the nations' histories. I was also thinking their could be a vice-president (another element of republicanism) which would be the opposite ethnicity of the Sultperor (a rather lame blend of the words, I know).


 * Sounds good, except for the repopulation. That would be very difficult what with the violent conditions on the Mainland. Also, the surviving Greeks and Turks have much lower birth rates because of radiation and would not be able to fill the space. Most of the islands and some defensible coastal regions, I would think. Benkarnell 20:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

How long is it before people can return to an area affected by radiation? I would at least hope that Athens, Thessaloniki, Constantinople, and Ankara can at least be repopulated. I was thinking of rebuilding the historic buildings lost in the war such as the Parthenon, Hagia Sophia, Topkapi Palace, etc with a more "blended" twist to the remakes.


 * I'm not sure how long the radiation lasts, but I think the barriers to rebuilding would be security and safety and money and resources more than radiation. Benkarnell 02:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fallout
 * Radiation reaches levels safe for travel and decontamination within 3-5 weeks. MUCH earlier than I expected. I was thinking more like 20 years. Reconstruction of Hiroshima began in 1949, 4 years after the bomb hit.--Oerwinde 07:51, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Even so, reconstruction would still be an enormous project, even if it is safe to go through. As you said, reconstruction of Hiroshima was rebuilt after four years... but that was with the resources of a whole country. Our Doomsday nations would not be up to it, I think... save perhaps the ANZC (and the SAC, but they don't have any nuked cities). --DarthEinstein 17:19, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I didn't say Hiroshima was rebuilt in 4 years, I said reconstruction began 4 years after the bomb fell. I think it took much longer than 4 years, and they had international aid. But with this knowledge, I think it likely that Canada would rebuild Halifax and attempt to reclaim the toronto area peninsula(not sure what its called). Australia would rebuild, the rest likely wouldn't have the resources or desire for reconstruction.--Oerwinde 00:17, November 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't think they would rebuild Halifax. I'm not Nova Scotian, but as far as I can tell, other cities could play the role of major port without Halifax. Reconstruction would be a large investment, and I don't see there being any large reward. However after the war I think Canada would attempt to rebuild Quebec City, which is in a strategically significant position. Toronto is fairly far away from Canada's zone of control. It is in fact closer to Superior, I think. --DarthEinstein 02:47, November 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * Rebuilding Quebec City would also be a symbolic gesture to the French Canadians as well. Of all the cities to be reconstructed, the Quebec capital getting the priority could solidify french support. Heck, it could be designated as the federal district and become the capital of Canada.--Oerwinde 06:56, November 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, it would be a symbolic gesture too. But I'm not sure that it would be the right place for the federal district, as it would be fairly vulnerable to the remnants of the Lawrence Raiders and to Saguenay if they decide to attack again. --DarthEinstein 15:43, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

It could happen... some time later. Hiroshima was re-built... I think Nagasaki did too... and the idea of re-poblating the greek cities, trying to reduce radiation in more polluted areas and going into the mainland, rebuilding monuments would be excellent. Also, for the Greek-Turkish union... the capital could be in Ankara or Delphi (modern city)... both small towns that I think weren't nuked. -Fedelede 22:27, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry everyone-the Unity League was scrapped. It sort of branched off into the Confederation of Greece and whatever the Hell happened to Turkey. Mr.Xeight 02:54, November 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * I realize that, but I had been working based on a greatly overestimated timeframe for radiation to reach safe levels. So when I saw this question I looked it up and had to respond.--Oerwinde 06:56, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

List of nuclear tests Hiroshima is not the same that Plumbbob, atenas gonna be hard to clear and repopulat--Fero 02:57, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

Graduation is past due!
This page is actually just a reference tool for writing articles. It needs to be taken off the proposal list. It has been laying dormant for months, but nothing in TTL has been written that would change any of the information here. SouthWriter 16:53, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * There a few things actually. For one thing Berlin is marked here as being nuked. This page was written before the days we clamped down on contradictions to canon. Mitro 18:01, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, Berlin would not be nuked (both sides laying claim to different sides of the city). That "one thing" can still be fixed.  Anyone who sees a contradiction with the information there can easily change the chart (if only applying "strike through" to the entries.  Meanwhile anyone wishing to add a stategic target that was ommited can add those as well.  Like I said, it's just for easy reference in writing articles. SouthWriter 19:42, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Updated List
For those who haven't noticed, I have been working on an updated page in my sandbox. Pretty much what I did was collect all of the canon strikes and list them here. I haven't finished as I only got to the "P" North American states. You can help by listing any targets I missed or removing any places that were not targeted.

Also I am compiling a list of likely strikes in the Soviet Union. That list is on another computer but I hope to have it up by the end of the week. Also China needs some work but I have tried to start listing places that were likely to be hit. Mitro 14:38, March 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Why should the small town of Signal Mountain, TN, be targeted? Even the nearby Walden Ridge (sometimes misnamed 'Signal Mountain due to the town there) is not a particularly worthy site to "waste" a nuclear bomb on. If you had to take it out for its communication towers, then a well-placed bomb over Chattanooga would be best.


 * Also, why would the Russians nuke Camp David, MD? Would it be out of spite? One would think that a strategic list of planned targets would concentrate on military and industrial sites, as well as major political sites (capitals, legislatures, etc.) A presidential "retreat" might be a site to take the president in an emergency, but to assume it's being targeted in a first strike seems to be stretching it. SouthWriter 20:43, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you are right about Signal Mountain, but these guys list Camp David as a primary target and it looks like the FEMA maps agree. Mitro 20:49, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Both those sources are based on the same maps, so agreement is irrelevent. However, some places not mentioned in canon show up on the survival ring maps. I like the first maps - published to the talk pages in the beginning of this wikia - and of course the map of US military bases. I suppose if you take those two together, you might indeed have the survival ring maps, though. SouthWriter 23:06, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the two sources are not the same. I think Brian discovered recently that they disagreed about a target in New York. However there some of the few sources we have. Mitro 23:31, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * The maps are the same, and Brian was citing where one disagreed. However, we seem to have disregarded the earliest source altogether while assuming the 1990 FEMA maps in most cases. What was the source of the first maps, and why did we decide they were unreliable? The fact that we have FEMA 1990, rather than FEMA 1980, may mean something.SouthWriter 21:57, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Your right the survivalist website and the FEMA maps list the same target. I misread what Brian wrote. That being said I still think Camp David would be a target. I'm assuming the Soviets would want to wipe out the American leadership in case of a nuclear war and thus would target all the likely places the President could go. Mitro 14:06, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

If I were to choose, I'd go with the less extensive target map upon which this time line was originally conceived. Of course, that map made it much easier for larger survivor communities (such as Piedmont) to arise. The FEMA maps may have been a reaction by that agency to the concieved threat, rather than to known "targets." In the case of the upstate of SC, it shows nuclear power plants as targets (tertiary, according to the survivorist site that differentiates such things. But those guys misidentified Greenville as a tertiary target (thinking the nuclear plant was in Greenville?). I still haven't figured out why FEMA marked Spartanburg as a target.

As for bombing places where the president might be, reason would dictate that with any warning at all he'd be in a bunker several hundred feet under ground. In that case, the airbursts that destroyed the ground level structures would not kill him anyway. The ground level explosions would be more effective only if they were extremely accurate. Such ground-level explosions would probably be on missile silos, trying to prevent a second volley of missiles from hardened silos. SouthWriter 14:47, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * The original target map only listed cities and not military targets. Its likely that in the event of a nuclear military targets would be the primary targets. I think that was a reason why it made the map unrealistic, especially considering the large number of nuclear warheads both the USSR and USA had at their dispossal.
 * I have always felt that primary targets are going to be hit, unless there is some compelling reason brought by an editor to show they would not be hit. I am a little more flexible when it comes to secondary targets, but more often than not I nuke them. Tertiary targets I generally assume survived unless there was some reason I could find would mean they would be destroyed.
 * The FEMA maps probably aren't perfect. They are making educated guesses about potential targets in the US. Unless someone digs up a Soviet memo from 1983 that says "In case of nuclear war we will bomb x, y, z" we will never know if we are 100% correct. Also we have no way of knowing which missile in 1983 was going to malfunction and miss it's target, a factor that can be very frustrating when someone wants to use that plot device so that their hometown will survive.
 * That being said since this is a dystopia, I personally rather go with the worst case scenario the FEMA maps represent. I'm not saying we should follow them to the letter (which we don't anyway), but they can be persuasive when we discuss what was hit or not hit.
 * Now logical might dictate that the president would be underground, but that does not mean the Soviet leadership will ignore a potential haven of the president. Even if they think it was unlikely to destroy the bunker, they still might take the chance. Mitro 15:09, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * The original maps, in the southeast any way, seemed to show the most logical military sites -- In the tri-state area, I see the Savanah River Plant, which processes weapons grade plutonium, Ft. Benning (multiple) and Tyndall Air Base, along with three strikes across central Florida and multiple strikes in Miami. Key West seems to also have been targeted. Granted, this does not give a dystopia like we are dealing with. I have begun an analysis of the southeast based on 1 megaton airbursts over all the FEMA marked sites. I want to see how a truely "worst case" scenario might differ from what we have come up with in the last year and a half. If this turns out to be too much different from what we have with 1983DD, I might set up 1983WCS -- 1983:Worst Case Scenario. If I do, I will invite everyone over to see what "damage" they can do based on my investigation. Hint: An uderground bunker in NYC would probably hold President Reagan and his entourage and many of the UN and local government officials as well. Digging out might prove difficult, though. SouthWriter 18:21, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to explain why I removed Cape Charles AFB from the list. When I wrote the Doomsday history for Delmarva last year, I mentioned it was a target but not struck. Part of this was during my research I found information indicating they were already in the process of closing it at the time and as such I didn't believe it would be hit. I guess someone misread my article and accidently listed it. Thanks. --Fxgentleman 03:47, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

In the process of being closed doesn't mean anything. Two bases in Oregon were closed in the 70s and they were still hit.Oerwinde 04:56, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I understand the point you are making, however it was a judgement call I made when I wrote my history last year. During my research I noted it being listed on the FEMA list, however I found several mentions that it was deactivated in 1981 and was in the process of being turned into a wildlife refuge. So I erred on the side of judgement and stated it was not hit, but any electronic equipment on site was burned out by EMPs making it useless since it was supposed to be a radar station. I did though have the other primary target in Delmarva, Dover AFB, be hit.--Fxgentleman 11:45, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Strikes in Africa
Someone added a "Strikes in Africa" heading, but no one has yet listed any strikes under the heading. Were there any potential targets in Africa on Doomsday? -Mitro


 * Some editors feel that there may have been some secondary strikes in Egypt, but other than that, I don't think so. There were no stategic bases anywhere in post-colonial Africa - on either side - that I know of.SouthWriter 01:00, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * maybe Mayotte. VENEZUELA 01:08, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing there, Ven, just a lot of tropical forests and mostly small towns. French over seas provinces, probably lapped up by Madagascar if they got the chance. The control of the island in 1983, though, seems to have been local - with the support of South Africa and against the French. With the fall of France, the locals would be stronger. As South Africa fell apart, the islands would get even stronger. But I suspect that Madagascar would leap at the chance to control the islands off its coast.SouthWriter 01:40,

July 20, 2010 (UTC)

I have always been convinced that Egypt would have been struck. Especially, since it was a key US ally in the region as much as Israel or Jordan. It would have been logical to presume that Cairo and at least two or three key military sites were destroyed. I can not see any other way the nation would have collapsed into chaos and been taken over briefly by Islamic extremists. The only way this could have logically occurred would have been for President Mubarak and his key political and military people to have died on Doomsday. I have been looking at the situation for some time to see how to advance Israel's history and their attacking Egypt and I can't find anything else which makes sense as to how events would have reached this point.--Fxgentleman 01:52, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

I have allways belived that South Africa would have been nuked. It had its own nuclear weapons and was aligned with the US. I cannot belive that the USSR would have left it completely untouchedVegas adict 16:55, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Strikes in USSR
If a nuclear bomb struck the Black Sea, the resulting tsunami would not reach Taganrog, which is on the Sea of Azov. In fact, Taganrog is on the far end of the Sea of Azov and around a bend. When the tide surge hit the Strait of Kerch it might indeed surge over the cities (though land rises to about 300 feet in places), but that would most likely dissipate the force of the surge. The narrow strait, in fact, would act as barrier islands in stopping any tidal surge from directly entering the Sea of Azov. You need to chose another city not already targeted to be the victim of a stray warhead in the Black Sea. SouthWriter 17:58, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Pechenga, Murmansk Oblast?? Let me guess, an early warning facility? SouthWriter 18:27, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Batumi? Why would the US target an autonomous Muslim City? SouthWriter 18:55, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Note: US Target List
Please use this list of targets for further U.S. additions/edits. It's from FEMA documents, and I think it will allow for a more accurate picture of the post-nuclear world. Thanks -Englishmanjacob 20:13, August 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * You have to add a link to the page, Jacob. This link is the list that we use as a guide:


 * http://www.ki4u.com/nuclearsurvival/list.htm


 * However, the maps linked to that page do not prioritize. Another site now covers that, and I can't find it. Every once and a while some one gives a link to that as well. We have basically assumed that military targets would probably be hit, as well as most major population centers. When we use these two criteria, we have about an 80% fatality rate - including the destruction of most state governments. It has worked so far. SouthWriter 01:39, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

It should naturally be assumed that most teritary targets were not struck on Doomsday. Those targets would have been saved for a second wave that naturally failed to materialize. Doomsday was not a long protracted war. It was a short spasm of violence that lasted maybe a few hours to a day max.

Yankovic270 02:44, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom times
According to the article, the missiles were launched within minutes of 00:40 GMT. The times you have for the missiles hitting Britain are all over an hour later! I would think that the missiles (which took about 35 minutes to get to Washington DC) would have been hitting England and Wales before 01:00. That would leave precious little time for evacuation even if the people could be warned (there was communication there until the bombs started due to no EMP in space. Besides, the US would have notified the UK as soon as they knew warheads were on the way.  If for some reason the first missiles were unloaded on the US, the extra time that the UK received before it was obliterated would have at least awakened most everyone on the islands.  The surprize in the night would probably not have been as described in the paragraph (given twenty minutes or seventy).  Panic in the night is probably a better picture, for there was nowhere to go! SouthWriter 01:54, September 10, 2010 (UTC)