Talk:New Britain (1983: Doomsday)

Archive

Recent edits
People don't become homeless simply because they are lazy or lucked out. Many have serious mental disorders or addictions. And you are making them soldiers? Yeah that is impossible.

Furthermore how is the rest of the population taking the socialist policies of New Britain? Giving the unemployed jobs, how are they paying them?

Also all this military buildup makes me worried you are heading toward another Rhodesia. What exactly are you planning? Mitro 00:55, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

I think that people would be happy to see unemployed and homeless people taken into the workforce. It takes them off benefits for one. Also the fact that Auxiliaries are told from the very beginning that the fact that a British soldier is a warrior of justices will inevitably increase their self asteem. The military build up is not heading towards demented empire building. There will be a little expansion of New Britain which is only natural as warlords are subdued. It is a lso a logical step. Expansion is happening everywhere. Virginia, Victoria, Canada, Australia, Colombia, Celtic Alliance, France, Prussia, USSR, Superior. All of these nations are expanding. What is stopping New Britain, one of the wealthiest and most powerful nations in Southern Africa from expanding. Bob 18:35, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are starting to buy into your own propaganda. Some of the things you suggest are outright slavery. Being forced to work without a choice because of your station in life (ex. homeless or unemployed) and you should just be expected to feel good about while doing it, that sounds like slavery to me or at least identured servitude. Meanwhile you are putting potentialy mentally unstable people in uniforms and giving them guns and hoping everything will be ok, that sounds normal to you? Also don't forget that homeless people tend to be old and in horrible shape. How exactly do you make a soldier out of that?


 * In OTL nations have attempted to do some of the things you suggested and it was never very popular. Money has to come from somewhere which means things are going to be cut from the budget or taxes are going up. I can't see the population of New Britain being any different.


 * Furthermore, why is New Britain the wealthiest? According to the economy section they are mostly agrarian and have very little industry. Also considering that they still have a good chunck of the Royal Navy, most of their budget has to be sunk into that. This doesn't seem to suggest to me that they are the wealthiest by far in the region, though in all fairness not much has been written. Mitro 19:07, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather than round up all the homeless, how about you do a screening. The mentally ill are institutionalised, and the healthy are recruited. That would solve at least one of the issues here. The main issue I have is that the new flag is a step down from the previous one. Just a personal preference.--Oerwinde 19:43, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

i agrree with ben. at least on the flag issue. i tink we should have a vote. its my opinion the new flag looks like a naval ensign.--HAD 20:31, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, its not really up to us, if thats what he wants as the flag, then thats the flag.--Oerwinde 07:47, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

i assume he is bob? and i agree with you about the homeless and mentally ill stuff. New Britian is starting to rsemble a avery militarized nation, V for Vendetta in soythb africa, but without the facism. --HAD 10:35, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * okey I am not going to get political about this but its common sence to put the unemployed to work in Arms production this means the population can support themselves why making sure the armed forces are well equipped but I agree with the flag is a bit sparce but I will get his permision before calling a vote I have two ideasOwen1983 17:33, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Forcing people to work for the government means the government is paying them, which means its the people's tax money which is paying them. Such a formula has never been popular. Its one thing to build up industry so that private companies hire these people, but forcing someone to work for the government rarely goes over well. Mitro 17:58, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Even a screening process has issues. First what is the definition of being homeless? 3.5 million Americans experience homelessness in a given year, but are all their situations exactly the same? Would a man who lost his home in a fire and has to live at a hotel or the traveling salesmen who lives in hotels and uses his brother’s place as an address only to receive mail (true story) be considered truly homeless and thus required to join the military? I think what Bob is going here is for chronic homeless people, which means we need to ask what is the chronic homeless population of New Britain? I’m going to attempt to find out and I apologize if the math is rough, plus I’m getting all of my ratios from Wikipedia’s stats on the US.

New Britain has a population of 2,439,131 and I’m going to argue that 7.4% of that population has experienced homelessness in a given year, which means the “homeless” population of New Britain in 2010 would be somewhere around 180,495. Now we need to subtract minors and women (unless New Britain allow women to fight on the front lines) which is probably around 20%, so that would leave us with 36,099. Now in the US chronic homeless people make only 10% of the homeless population, so New Britain’s chronic homeless population is roughly 3,609.

We are not done yet though because these guys are supposed to be soldiers, and thus must meet the same requirements as any other soldier before they are allowed to handle a firearm. Now we have to split that number in half to get rid of all the people who have serious mental illnesses, are disabled, have substance abuse problems, or acute health problems/conditions, so that leaves us with 1,804 eligible. Now split that number again for all those who were convicted felons (unless you want to give dangerous men weapons) and then you have 902 eligible. Finally since 75% of people who are homeless tend to be older, you will need to subtract all of the people too old to serve in the military thus leaving you with roughly a pool of 225 people to recruit from.

To be fair though, some of those men might double up with their problems screwing up the outcome. Still with only a little more than 200 people, is it really worth it to implement such a program? How much does it cost to train, arm, feed, shelter and cloth a soldier?

There are some factors that I left out because I can’t figure how to calculate them in. For example what if the homeless person in question is a single parent who has one or more minor children who completely depend on them. I can see the front page of the Port Elizabeth newspaper as gestapo-like agents of the King drag a man away from his crying children, with the oldest lying dazed in the gutter after being attacked for trying to prevent his father from leaving. Also there is nothing worse than forcing someone to join the military who really does not want to be there. They never make as good soldiers as volunteers.

Seriously Bob, why not try universal conscription. [EDIT] Crap I screwed up with the math. The pool should actually be around 700. Even then I still think the costs of the suggested program far outweigh the benefits. Mitro 18:35, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

V for Vendetta in the Veldt is a really bad idea. We really don't wan't a repeat of the Rhodesia farce that nearly tore this ATL apart at birth, do we?HAD 20:10, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I see my mistake with the homeless people now. It was only a way to get them off the streets and give a warm place to sleep and get a meal in their bellies. However British militarisation isn't necessarily a bad thing. I don't want everything up to the Zambezi River like Cecil Rhodes. I don't even want all of South Africa. All I want is some expansion into the surrounding areas. Comparing this to V for Vendetta is unfair. in that film the government is a fascist dictatorship. New Britain is a multicultural democracy. Bob 17:17, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * There are better ways to provide for the homeless then making them soldiers. Private charities, with government subsidies, would be much more effective. Also while NB might be a multiculutral democracy, new laws forcing people to work is not something a democracy usually does. I would highly recommend reverting or changing your recent edits. Mitro 17:25, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Status of the NB Navy
Why should the navy of NB be the "by far the largest and best equipped" part of the NB armed forces? NB is neither an island state nor focused on sea, which would justified the maintance of a large naval force. Therefore, the surviving Royal Navy ships should be by now mostly obsolute and non-replacable by like their Spanish equivalents. The NBN would be still most likely a quite powerful navy by African standards but otherwise fairly insignificant and not worth mentioning. If nobody object my critic, I will delete above-mentioned line.--Grand Prince Paul II. 01:16, January 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Since most of the british ground forces were wiped out on Doomsday, and the air force is probably nearly non-existent, the Navy, despite its age, would likely still be the dominant military force of the nation. Though with more emphasis being put on the army this may not be true for long.Oerwinde 01:23, January 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's plausible that the British Expeditionary Force was dominated by the Navy but this dominance within the armed forces of New Britain would not last beyond the first years. New Britain simple does not have the population-, industrial- and resource-base to maintain the fairly large army (for a small contry) (eight regiments), the numerous remains of the Royal Navy and being essentially in a permanent state of war against various warlords and even more populous neighbour states. The goverment will have to compromise and to scrape/loot/sold/transfer a significant portion of the Navy, the least needed part of the NB armed forces to maintain the rest. A likely early measure would the dissolving of the Fleet Air Arm and transfer of the units to the NB Air Force. Grand Prince Paul II. 20:04, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

if that is the case, i'll have to edit the brazil military section, so can we please reach a decesion on this. HAD 20:34, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

i meant active carriers.HAD 21:20, January 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * You mean the aircraft carrier-part? Actually, it's not implausible if NB keeps the Invincible as a stationary Navy HQ. Grand Prince Paul II. 20:49, January 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * In that case, you should correct the Brazilian military section. Grand Prince Paul II. 21:22, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if NB has access to the sea untill this can be decided I will leave the NB navy question --Owen1983 13:00, February 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * NB is a coastal nation and its capital is a port. So I think thats pretty obvious.Oerwinde 18:43, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Map of New Britain
The existing map of New Britain is quite ambiguous. It is not in context with the surrounding continent so we have no way of seeing its actual size. There needs to at least be a legend to show its size. Preferably, though, there needs to be a map of Africa showing New Britain's present boundaries and the nations nearby. SouthWriter 17:43, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

How's this:(slightly edited NB's borders after looking at a Xhosa language map for probably KwaXhosa border.)


 * That's a lot better. It looks like the great British Empire's "home state" is reduced to half of OTL "Eastern Cape," the worst half to boot. I'd say that Cleveland back home may have got the better land, and then there's Bermuda! You never can figure those royals, huh? SouthWriter 13:21, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

That may be true, but they (Cleaveland and Bermuda) got tiny anounts of land. There will always be people believing that "bigger is always better" even when its obviously not true.

Yankovic270 13:39, March 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note, I did not say "bigger," but only "better" land. The coastal plain of Eastern Cape appears okay, but the plush forest seems to belong to KwaXhosa. SouthWriter 15:00, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

I like the map Owen1983 13:44, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

You have to remember that this world is cooler and moister than OTL. What we now see as desert here may well be lush savanna. Bob 16:53, March 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe. But either way it makes sense for the Neobritish to thrive in land that others didn't want. It would mean that others could leave them alone while they consolidated the country. And probably they would rely on pastoralism alongside or instead of traditional farming. I really like the image of English cattle nomads :). Re the map: ISTR that Lesotho had expanded into some of the Sesotho-speaking parts of Orange Free State province. But maybe I'm wrong. Benkarnell 17:00, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the Azanian League. There is some mention of it in other articles. Maybe we should try flushing out that idea more. Mitro 17:13, March 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the Azanian League is conceived as centered on the Jo'burg area, which is blank in this map. For all we know, all or part of KwaZulu and/or Sesotho may be part of it. Benkarnell 17:34, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

I was working off a combo of the World Map, the history of NB, and the current NB map. The Azanian League wasn't defined much, its named on the map but there are no borders. I also thought that KwaZulu was split, but couldn't find much on that. South Africa is a pretty active area, needs a lot of work to flesh out whats been going on.Oerwinde 18:06, March 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * The Azanian League has been mentioned and suggested and worked with enough that its existence ought to be considered canonical, IMO. That's why it's on the map without borders: we know it's there, but very little else. As for KwaZulu being split, that's an idea I brought u p one time, but I don't think the idea's gotten enough "press" to be considered canon, if you ask me. I'll leave it to somebody who wants to do real work on the Zulu. - Benkarnell 207.63.140.254 19:16, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

i like this map alot!Ramdominsanity 19:27, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Refugees
If the inhabitants of New Britain were so worried about the Imperialist party bringing a return to Apartheid, that they would organize a mass exodus all the way to Britain, then why did they vote for them?Oerwinde 16:17, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

We have to know: Who support the Imperialists? Why people associate them with the apartheid? And why would New Britain send warships to the British Islands if they never claim nor control any territory of the "Old" British mainland? --Grand Prince Paul II. 16:33, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with the above statements. People in a democracy usually don't pack up and leave because the elected government has some policies they disagree with.  Usually they just vote them out in the next election.  Also why the hell would they immigrate to a third world country that post-DD Britain is now?  Wouldn't the more advanced South America or Austalia be a better bet?  Look at the history of immigration.  People usually try to avoid going to a place that is worse off than their last home.  Mitro 18:46, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Railway
When i was doing reaserch on Botswana's railways i discovered that there had once been a rail link from Botswana to where New Britain is now and i was wondering what would have happened to itVegas adict 18:35, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Map
I think the map of New Britain should be updated. Currently its just a red blob with nothing to showcase where it is actually. Mitro 19:47, April 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * I brought it up a bit ago (see above). Here is a composite of the map on the article and the map of new Britain in context.New_Britain_South_Africa.png The full size file should work for the article. It shows the state boundaries inside the country. It could be resized and cropped to match wat is there now, but I think the Indian Ocean and the Continent of Africa need to be clearly marked. SouthWriter 22:35, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think that New Britain would've expanded into the territory to the west and north that is not claimed by any surrounding nation?--Smoggy80 17:47, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

Bump. There was mention of New Britain pushing westward toward the RZA a while back but no updates since.Oerwinde 06:22, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

The RZA and New Britain would've prob decided on a border by now, prob halfway on the map so each nation gets half the uncontrolled land, as for Volkstaat it shows a larger nation extent on its own article page than on the New Britain page



--Smoggy80 18:58, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Bet on it being much closer to the RZA than New Britain. Lordganon 23:46, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

The extent of Volkstaat on the New Britain map was established before the one on the Volkstaat page, which uses a map that was just ripped from the wikipedia page. Also, how is this for New Britain borders? I used a map of rivers to do it so the borders made sense. Oerwinde 08:19, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, it's possible that new Britian has moved even further north, maybe as far as the orange country which i'm guessing is Orange Free State?--Smoggy80 16:01, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

It depends on their resources and how long it took to take the west I think. I didn't bother with that since we were worried about the border with the RZA. The little patch surrounded by Volkstaat and NB I figure will be claimed by both, but someone needs to outline Volkstaat better before we start expanding it.Oerwinde 17:16, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

With New Britain fighting with the nation of KwaXhosa, I would take a guess that the New British would try and claim all land surrounding KwaXhosa in order that KwaXhosa cannot claim more land.--Smoggy80 14:00, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

I think this might be better for boundries. This will ensure that KwaXhosa cannot claim any land to the west as well as give NB a boundary with the OFS. :D Imperium Guy 14:10, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that looks much better, like you say the little bit of unclaimed land between Volkstaat and NB needs to be sorted. A war would be not advised as that would prob involve the rest of the Union of South Africa--Smoggy80 14:18, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

On another point, it looks like the RZA and Union of South Africa pages may have been abandoned and could be up for adoption, looking at them the area surrounding NB needs a good clean up particularly boundaries etc--Smoggy80 14:52, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

This map and the map on the Union of SA pages conflicts by a fair amount, just saying. :/ Imperium Guy 15:50, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

I've made this very rough map (I freely admit i'm no good at them) it shows the above map expanded to show the rest of southern Africa.

--Smoggy80 16:57, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

All four of the states in the northwest are too large. Lordganon 19:31, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Royal Family
Does King Andrew have any children? as i'm adding him in as part of my line of royal accession for Cleveland. --Smoggy80 18:55, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

I would assume so, but names, ages, etc and who would be his wife would be something for Mumby. Lordganon 18:33, September 24, 2011 (UTC)