Talk:New Britain (1983: Doomsday)

Alliance
I noticed your International Relations section and have a proposal for such.

Would you be interested in an alliance between New Britannia and the Unity League? I'd like to colonize lands in the name of the Byzantine Turks/Ottoman Greeks, as well as you'd like to colonize land in the name of the King. What do you think? Mr.Xeight 19:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a wise proposal. The colonisation and defence of the eastern seaboard of America is paramount. I assume there is radiation left over so radiation suits for the colonists will be necessary. Bob 10:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have just the place to start. Recently the UL has been on the crusade against communism and radical Islam within its nearby states "in the name of peace and democracy" and is "following the example of the LoN". I noticed your mentionings of NB aid to Somalia, a well known rowdy place. What if NB and the UL were to team up to "combat the radical Muslims and Communists" and set up mandates. I propose a fair deal of the land. Eritrea the Italian Somaliland, and North Yemen can go to the UL. New Britannia can take the former British Somaliland, Socotra, Djibouti, and South Yemen. Sound fair? Mr.Xeight 22:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me!Bob 12:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sound not illegitimate, your ideas. But please do not simply carve up the African continent!! Do not ignore the still existing Sicily, Pais del Oro and the International Relations as well as the ongoing debate about the true potential of a Unity League, the content regarding the Celtic Alliance and so on!!. We neeed some more intense research before we simply create a Neo-Ottoman-Empire and a New British empire centered on Africa (I do NOT want Turtledove's Draka being restored here!!) More to follow, Xi&#39;Reney 13:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll agree with Xi&#39;Reney -- it just doesn't fit in my understanding of the technological and human limitations of this TL. --Louisiannan 14:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * what is the demography of NBritain? they are all black African people? way they don't use an African name? European white are sow many? without UK support can 5 whites enslave 50 Africans? i do not think so. White supremacy go down in Africa if the Queen and her complete army die. --Fero 17:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As I have said, in the past New Britannia is meant to be a new homeland for the British, Anglo-Africans and a new ethnic group of New British which is just people who live in the area and are bound to together by symbols and ideas rather than ethnicity. There isn’t any enslavement they live in a more welfare state, similar to the OTL, multicultural UK.Bob 07:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I've seen the Why and Wherefore for this country, though. Rhodesia was clearly a White expansionist state, a continuation of apartheid with a more aggressively English, rather than Afrikaaner, feel.  So far so good.  But I don't see how in a matter of months Rhodesia transforms into a happy multicultural place but still keeps this English identity.  If I were a Black or a Coloured Rhodesian, I would not just allow the Whites to stay in power with a bunch of promises about ideas and symbols.  I'd want a complete overhaul, and I'd want an acknowledgement of the symbols and traditions of the African majority.  And with the srurrounding territory being so unstable, there would no doubt be plenty of folks willing to assist the more radical anti-English elements who suffered under Rhodesian rule.  Based on the established history, I think the only choices are a total collapse of the Anglo-African state, or else a return to heavy handed rule.  Benkarnell 14:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In this timeline, in a world of chaos and destruction, as the very systems of government and civilisation crumble, as thousands die in the dust of virulent cancers, as the remnants of civilisation struggle to exist in a world of fire and death, what would race or colour mean. When the first British people (and I emphasise British rather than English) arrived it may well have been like when British people go overseas they don’t adapt well. They would remain in their own rigid communities refusing the help of the black man or woman in their own little world. However, with the rise of the RNP and the concentration camps, people saw the evil of what they were doing and after the civil war and the collapse of white supremacy and the adoption of a new British culture, surely both races, black and white could unite against racism and forge a new bright glittering future. A second generation of white British, brought upo amongst vast quantities of black men and women would be differnet to their racist ancestors. If the symbols of the old white regime don’t please, perhaps we could redesign the flag and coat of arms to include African symbols? Bob 10:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * without UK support can Falklands conquer Argentina? i do not think so --Fero


 * Since when did the Falklands conquer Argentina? As far as I know the Falklands are in the same state as they are in OTL.Bob 10:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made a minor adjustment to your post, Fero. While you didn't necessarily mean to be offensive, it did come across that way if one isn't acquainted with you and your writing style. Louisiannan 19:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Southafrica(dd)2008.PNG I'm not trying to ceaselessly promote myself, but the map I made for Rhodesia might help here. I think that if enough Whites congregated in one place, bringing their disproportionally large power and resources with them, they could create at least a local power.  The map shows a pretty small area in the eastern Cape that I suggested as their approximate zone of influence.  The Transkei and Ciskei regions, in this scenario, would likely comprise either one or more than one Xhosa state, probably the Rhodesians' bitterest enemies.  In this map scenario, the campaigns could still happen, but would lead to collapse - probably just one of several times this sort of thing has happened and one agressive local power decided to rampage about.  Benkarnell 21:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don´t belive in that nation. To me, after DD there become a civil war richwhites against black"slum/slaves/shit", and posible etnic clearning--Fero 17:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Fero you one of the most rude users of any wikia I have come across. You have no manners, you are too candid, you use insults against the people you are trying to defend, beyond biased, and refuse to help people by learning the wikia's language better. I implore to shape up before I start sending out complaints against to the admins. Mr.Xeight 23:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea of this nation is slightly amusing, I don't really see it happening. I mean how the British could move 98% of the population is beyond me. I also agree with what's been said before. I can't see the group of people who have been put into labour camps suddenly be all happy a short time later. It's a nice idea but I simply can see it happening without better technology to transport the people, and force being used on rebellions being made by the Rhodesians. --Gamb1993 21:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

On foot?
"Many travel on foot."

That is completely ridiculous. Do you know how far the UK is from South Africa? Somehow thousands of men, wommen and children are going to survive "walking" across devestated Europe, the war-torn Midde East, the Sahara desert and finally get through the anarchy of southern Africa and still be able to overthorw the people already there. How the hell is that remotely plausible? And what happened to boats, planes, cars, bicycles and horses? Did the whole Royal Navy and every single merchant ship around Britian disappear? Mitro 13:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * hahahahahahahahahah wait, let me breath, and hahahahahahahahaahahha--Fero 19:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I allowed to revert that? That's unbelievably rude and mean spirited.  Benkarnell 21:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd ask everyone to remain civile even when disagreeing with someone's contribution--Marcpasquin 19:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

My comment about cars, bikes, etc., was not meant to be serious and came out of my frustration with your "travel on foot" edit. Any attempt at land travel to South Africa would be implausible. Mitro 19:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

New changes
I think that this page is getting nearer to plausibility. It's still optimistic in the extreme, and doesn't take into account the turmoil of a post-DD world, but it's getting there. I like the new role played by Indians; Natal has a large Indian population anyway, so it's realistic. I still don't think that an idealistic state like this would be able to force itself over so wide an area. In particular, KwaZulu would not capitulate so easily. Remember that in OTL the 80s were the period when the inkatha Freedom Party was going around killing and stirring up KwaZulu to the point where everyone predicted that apartheid would collapse in a civil war. Only the extraodinary force of Mandela's leadership persuaded the IFP to end its policy of violence. In addition, Port Elizabeth is adjacent to two of the RZA's most viable "bantustans" of the 80s - the Ciskei and Transkei actually had functioning governments in the 80s, as opposed to some of the other ones. They would be NB's nearest neighbors and would not be happy with a new white state next door, even an idealistic one. To me, this country can fit into the project, but a number of factors will probably keep it small and local, with no serious way to claim all of South Africa.

By the way, have you found anything on the actual plans to evacuate Britain? They seem like an essential guide to writing this story. Benkarnell 13:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I found some information.

At the height of the Cold War, every Prime Minister knew that if it tipped into World War III, he would probably find himself in a secret bunker deep beneath the rolling Cotswolds countryside.

With only a tiny group of ministers and advisers, he would have to decide whether to retaliate with every nuclear weapon at Britain's disposal. He would essentially be contemplating the end of the world as we know it.

It was the most ghastly contingency a prime minister would have to consider. If that point was reached, above ground, as the sirens sounded, the nation would be awaiting armageddon. Hospitals would have been prepared for a deluge of casualties, troops mobilised, makeshift fall-out shelters would have been built.

Even so, the devastation would be catastrophic. How would Britain ever recover? Every two years during the Cold War, civil servants in key ministries rehearsed this end-of-the-world scenario.

Their job was to test the Government War Book, which outlined in terrifying detail what would happen during the countdown to a nuclear apocalypse - and beyond.

Fragments of the so-called War Book have appeared before. But the declassification of the whole 1970 edition, three large files of secret documents, allows us to see how the whole interlocking plan would have been implemented for the very first time.

If nuclear war became inevitable, the PM, Foreign Secretary, a small group of ministers and other vital personnel would be evacuated to a central bunker deep beneath the Cotswolds near Corsham, Wiltshire.

They would have been rushed there by helicopter at the last minute from Horse Guards Parade, having left Downing Street through the back door.

Other ministers would head to one of 12 more bunkers around the country, which would act as regional hubs of power after the attack.

As the clock ticked down to R-hour - the final release of nuclear weapons - medical units would be prepared for a catastrophe, and the police, fire service and civil defence forces would activate their emergency plans.

Emergency food distribution networks would be implemented and restrictions would even be placed on broadcasting weather forecasts so the enemy couldn't use them to their benefit.

The BBC - a crucial tool for communicating with a country in chaos - had a bunker in Wood Norton, Worcestershire, as well as a studio inside the central government bunker under the Cotswolds.

To save vital time, known BBC announcers made pre-recorded announcements to be broadcast in the hours before the bombs dropped. Last-minute instructions - and survival tips - would be broadcast to those remaining above ground until the very end.

But the strategy outlined in the War Book didn't end with the strike itself. After the bombs had dropped and the fall-out had cleared, power would be in the hands of the 12 regional governors, who would emerge into the irradiated ruins of a largely wrecked country.

The rehearsals, executed twice yearly according to strategies in the War Book, were giant war games that could last for up to four weeks.

Civil servants played members of the Cabinet as real ministers were discouraged from taking part.

'They would be disinclined to play by the rules,' said David Young, formerly one of the most senior civil servants in the Ministry of Defence, who once played the Defence Secretary. Some of them liked talking too much, so you'd get behind schedule.'

It was vital that everyone knew the timetable and stuck to the strategy, whatever their personal opinions.

'What you really don't want to happen in a major crisis is for the ministers and the key officials to be wasting time arguing. They should be spending their time defusing the crisis,' said Sir David Omand, a senior civil servant and former chairman of Whitehall's Security and Intelligence Committee, who took part in many rehearsals.

Indeed, records of these 'transition to war' exercises, paint a vivid picture of how World War III might have unfolded.

The 1968 exercise, codenamed 'Invaluable', for example, began on September 27 and gives the clearest indication of how the strategies laid out in the War Book would have been implemented in the run-up to a real global conflict.

This exercise began with a fictional scenario in which a cabal of 'hawks' won control in the Soviet Union - always known as ORANGE in the secret documents.

At 11.30am on the day of the crisis, the Cabinet met in Conference Room B in Whitehall, and decided to secretly prepare the government bunkers.

They also agreed to prepare a draconian Emergency Powers (defence) Act, which could be rushed through Parliament and provide them with extraordinary powers in the event of war.

Within days, the international situation deteriorated further. The Soviet Union's new hawkish leaders started making increasingly belligerent threats.

Turkey, a Nato ally, was alarmed by growing arms shipments between the Soviet Union and Syria. Soviet forces were deployed along the Soviet-Norwegian border. And a large concentration of Soviet Bloc naval power built up in the Baltic.

War drew ever closer - and as the pace of events sped up, there seemed little hope of a peaceful resolution.

Soviet aircraft were soon moved into Eastern European airfields and Soviet fighters, which had started harassing civil aircraft in the Berlin air corridor, forced a Pan Am civil airliner to crash.

As East Germany accused West Germany of plans to invade, Czech and Hungarian forces massed on the border with Austria. And then, the following day, the most dramatic twist yet: the USSR landed a man on the moon.

This was a populist publicity coup that intelligence experts feared would bolster Soviet resolve and encourage them to attack Nato.

Meanwhile, there were the first signs of unrest in the UK as dock and railway workers went on strike, apparently agitated by Soviet agents.

Letters also began to appear in newspapers asking when householders would be advised on how to protect their homes. Widespread panic was never far away.

In this darkening climate, the Cabinet met again, at 3.30pm on October 17 1968.

Among other things, they decided to implement covert measure 2.11, which readied Britain's phone network for the crisis and saw the erection of additional fall-out protection, constructed out of concrete blocks, around significant buildings.

Steps were also taken to put police, fire and civil defence services on a war footing so they were ready to deal with a nuclear attack. The Chiefs of Staff were also told to prepare for the evacuation of any military casualties from Germany.

As the exercise rolled on, the Cabinet also announced the general mobilisation of all the Armed Forces, including reserves, and ensured that British troops in Germany were prepared for a massive conventional attack.

It was now only matter of time before the order would be given to evacuate personnel to the bunkers.

In a real crisis, this order could have come without warning. And that moment would have been genuinely dreadful for the government staff involved.

These civil servants would have gone in advance of the ministers and would have been given just a few hours to return home and say goodbye to their families before reporting at Addison Road station, near London's Olympia.

From there, special trains would have taken them to Warminster military base.

To prevent widespread alarm, they would then have been driven secretly down side roads and under cover of darkness to their respective bunkers.

It would have been a harrowing journey, and as they descended into their subterranean refuge, all would have feared that they would never again see the world as they knew it.

Indeed, so awful was the prospect of having to abandon your family and retreat to a claustrophobic bunker, that senior officials feared many of their staff would fail to report for duty.

As a result, the plans were kept secret from many of those who would have to go underground. These civil servants often went through their entire careers without ever realising they were earmarked for one of the bunkers.

Back to the 1968 rehearsal and the hawkish Soviet leaders invaded Austria. Their Warsaw Pact allies attacked Greece and Turkey. War moved a step closer.

As the invasions were reported, panic began to take hold on the streets of Britain. There was massive demand for foodstuffs - particularly canned goods - and shortages-were reported in some areas.

It was still too early to accurately gauge the nation's mood, but crowds began to gather in Downing Street and Whitehall. Many were calling for Britain to declare its neutrality and step outside the conflict.

There were reports of people starting to fortify their homes. Few turned up for work and hardware shops and builders' yards were overwhelmed as people bought wood, concrete and sand with which to construct makeshift bunkers.

The crisis really had come home.

And so, the Cabinet took some of the last steps recommended by the War Book. They discharged all but the most acutely ill from hospital, moved major art treasures from London and Edinburgh to safe underground storage facilities - and applied the toughest of new laws, allowing for the possibility of summary executions for looting.

Then came the point of no return. Soviet Bloc forces invaded West Germany. Tanks and troops poured over the border; the Soviet leadership was appealing to Western workers to overthrow governments and warned that any use of nuclear weapons by Nato would cause violent reprisals.

Both chemical and biological weapons were used by the Soviets. Within days, the Red Army could have swept through France and reached the Channel.

From deep inside his bunker, the Prime Minister took the terrible decision - and authorised a tactical strike, using nuclear weapons to attack a number of carefully selected military targets.

The Soviets also unleashed a major strike and the Prime Minister felt he was left with no choice but to announce R hour ... the release of all remaining nuclear weapons. Armageddon was now a certainty.

For those taking part in the 1968 exercise, this was a chilling moment. David Young, who played the defence secretary, can still recall the feeling. 'It made my hairs stand up,' he said.

These exercises were phased out in the early 1990s and the War Book soon became an irrelevance, to be hidden away in a dusty filing cabinet. As an historic document, however, it is as haunting as ever, a terrifying reminder of just how close we came to Armageddon.
 * I think the biggest problem about the War Book in this TL is that it assumes there will be tensions that will warn the British government of an impending nuclear attack. In this TL the war comes as a complete surprise because of a computer glitch, thus the suggested precautions would be useless because there would be little warning.  Mitro 19:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree, that while it's an interesting tidbit, it would be nullified in large part by the abrupt nature of things -- tensions were generally viewed at a lower ebb -- it's not like the whole Cuban Missile Crisis was going on to warn the PM what was going on. It was a NATO exercise going on that triggered the whole event, and so one doubts whether they would've even thought to whisk away the PM from Downing Street before the first missiles hit -- and one wonders even if they did how long they, or any of the other government would really survive.  Just my thoughts. Louisiannan 20:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

History
Thank you for using my proposed history for South Africa. However I’m not sure how much of it is appropriate for this article. It was meant to act as a general history of the region and not be used by any one state. I recommend that you trim the history section and focus more on New Britain. Mitro 19:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Quibble
"New Britain is now regarded as one of the most enlightened nations of the world" -- sounds like communism under a new face, actually -- so I don't know if I'd actually list that on the page here -- given the wholesale socialization of everything in New Britain. But that's just me, unless this article should be read as a propaganda sheet from the Novobritons. Louisiannan 14:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah it does seem to read like propaganda. Who say New Britain is the most enlightened nation in the world?  Compared to who?  Maybe compared to the MSP sure, but are they more enlightened then ANZC, the SAC, the Nordic Union, the Celtic Alliance, the Alpine Confederation, etc.?  Probably not.
 * Also I still feel the 2000s section needs to be tweeked to focus more on New Britain and less on the New Union. The details on how it formed are unimportant to New Britain, only that it did and now it’s a threat.Mitro 15:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

My Comments which you wanted
Mumby I'm truly sorry to have to be so very rude on this, I really am. New Britain can not exist. This TL is mainly centered on the greats like the US, USSR, UK, every nation that's abbreviated whose first letter is "U" are all gone, blown to smithereens. I'm really shocked any sort of Navy ship near England even stayed afloat. The journey from the UK to South Africa is long and then you have the fact humanity has all gone to a savagery, so African pirates would be a threat. And besides, even if they did make it; when they find out Australia, they would most certainly go to the wonderful nation of Australia, pride of the Anglosphere, successor to the US. Even if some decided to stay, they wouldn't be welcomed. The Anglo-Saxon goverment might try to help them, but they have millions of other native Anglo-Saxon mouths to feed. Of course you have the true natives-the Africans. Doomsday has weakened the world, and a weakened South Africa means they could finally take back their land for themselves! There would be the apartheid government fighting African revolutionaries. Why would the British want to stay? All in all, Anglo-Saxon culture has seen it's day. I know what it's like to have idea after idea after idea rejected by a large community. I tried fighting tooth-and-claw to keep my creations afloat, but it just didn't work. So I tried a new approach. I worked with the group to get advice and tried brand new ideas once I did proper research and now I think I'm doing quite fine. However, if you want to keep your ideas, that's perfectly understandable. I'd suggest moving them to an alt-hist of your own though. Beware of criticism, it's a blessing in disguise. Mr.Xeight 21:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

new britsh empire
can propose some sort of empire or commonwelth for the britsh surviver states
 * The British Commonwealth could continue as an organization. I don't see any sort of new British Empire outside of New Britain's African territories.--24.83.80.247 06:18, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

well i was thinking maby a forth british empire as a new comer onto the world stage--Connornics 13:22, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * The Commonwealth could be restarted by the Anglo nations of the world (with some modifications), but any "New" British Empire would be implausible. I don't see Australia and Canada (two of the more powerful nations in the post-DD world) surrendering their independence to a tiny African refugee state where a glorified warlord has delusions of granduer.  Mitro 15:51, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps just an organisation celebrating common British heritage, including New Britain, Canada, ANZC, Victoria, and maybe somewhere else that I'm forgetting. But this wouldn't be any sort of superpower, just a small organisation, kind of like la Francophonie. --DarthEinstein 17:04, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

i meant in africa and who knows with northumbria and cleveland uniteing maby those three will unite--Connornics 19:39, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

Population
Just for clarity, what was the total number of British immigrants to New Britain, and what currently is their population count within the country? Thanks. Fegaxeyl 20:58, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

Janet Price
Who is Janet Price and why was she added as the leader of NB? The only person I found is a little known actress. Is this her? Would she even survive DD and make it to NB? Mitro 03:58, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

I picked the name out of a hat I figured here perants had farm in Rhodesia and elected to satay after Zimbabye became independant after DD i reckn a lot of British people survived by building wall across there land hording Gas food and so they could srvive when NB was save she was chosen as the Prime Minister --Owen1983 18:03, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * What? Ok first off is this person fictional or real?  If fictional and if she was in Rhodesia how did she get "saved" by New Britain?  I find it hard to believe that NB could mount a rescue mission that far into the interior post-Doomsday.  Mitro 18:18, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

the fortified community made radio contact with BSA and wer told tomake there way to new britain it would have been a dangerous journey for the comunity--Owen1983 18:57, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

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)