Talk:North American Union (1983: Doomsday)

Plausibility
This conflicts with previously established info on the Municipal States of the Pacific. You can't just wave your hand and undo one of the first nations ever created for this timeline. A lot of this will have to be changed. Benkarnell 22:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right Ben! Without Changes this can not be accepted as canon and my MSP are not to be removed this simple. And a lot of conflict potential to Ben's Hawaii Profile!! So please everyone read related and releveant stuff before changing established countries and profiles bearing hours of works!


 * @Ben Thanks for the reaction and I will highlight this issue on the Editorial Guideline (1983: Doomsday) and Start page again. Will start a major clean-up and update of the timeline as well as we got a lot things floating around... non-canon primarily.


 * @author of UAR: Nonetheless there are quite good ideas in your writing. A lot of them can be adopted into canon, but as Ben said will have to be modified of course. PLease have a look @ the Editorial Guideline (1983: Doomsday) and the general rules of althist wiki!! Thank you!

Xi&#39;Reney 03:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I can chime in re Obama. For my Hawaii project I certainly researched him, and in 1983 he was either in Chicago, New York, or Honolulu.  Either way, he's currently spending most of his time emitting beta particles...  couldn't very well be Speaker of anything :)  Benkarnell 00:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone mind if I try my hand at an edit? I have a few ideas to make this fit better with canon and also to explain why no other nation has significant contact with the UAR.


 * It's improving, but I think it still goes against the overall spirit of the timeline more than any specific piece of information. Before this page was created, all we knew about North America was that the Canadian government survived in the Arctic somewhere, and that there were some city states on the West Coast ruled by rough men who called themselves names like "Boss Jones".  The whole area was presented as violent, unorganized, uncivilized - all hallmarks of civilization had been destroyed by the bombs, the fallout, or the chaotic aftermath.  What remained were hardscrabble communities of men and women gathered for mutual defense from the roaming bands outside the town walls.  A functioning democracy that covers half of the old USA, in my opinion, goes against that overall picture.  I can see a smaller area that attempts a democracy.  Maybe even a regional council that attempts to coordinate between several struggling "state governments" with only partial control over their respective countrysides.  But nothing this large or this... happy.  Sorry for a long-winded response.  I just think that the problems with this idea go beyond details and canon, and go into the whole spirit of this alt-world.  Benkarnell 20:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ben. This article is way too optimistic.  Consider that in 2009 in this TL only a billion people live in the world today instead of 6 billion in OTL.  That means 5 out of every 6 of the people who should be alive aren't because of Doomsday, and the US took the brunt of that.  Not even considering the numbers of people who were killed from the nuclear attacks, more would die because of radiation sickness, other diseases, and general lawlessness as the governments on every level break down.  Large amounts of farmlands are going to be made useless, how does the surviving Americans feed themselves?  How do they communicate over long distances with the EMP?  Where do they get medicine?  And yet out of all of these problems not only does half of the US survive but somehow is organized enough to convince the world they don't exist?  That sounds like they may be getting cloaking devices from alien space bats.  Small communities like Ben suggested a more likely to survive then the large nation that exists now. Mitro 21:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I realize that it does go against the current spirit of the timeline, but, frankly, I think the current spirit of the timeline underestimates the number and organization of the survivors, at least in this case. Don't forget, over 14 million people survived in the Eastern Soviet Union because worthwhile targets were few and far between. The chances of the same thing happening in the US, especially in the midwest, are similar. Both of these countries are BIG. Nuclear weapons are devastating but relatively focused. Even accounting for fallout and near-total chaos after Doomsday, the entire population of the US wouldn't have just gone away. This does a good job of explaining where they went, I would say. Though I will admit this country is perhaps a bit large... 12 million people simply aren't going to fill that kind of space... I didn't want to heavily modify the existing article, but a more realistic UAR might encompass a number of cities in the Rocky Mountains, the surrounding area, and a sizable area of agricultural land in the eastern reaches of the mountains, extending onto the plains. I find it very difficult to believe that no remnant of US authority or the American population would have survived in the lower 48 states. Loughery111 22:57, 28 April 2009

Quick proposal that I think might be more realistic than both extremes... Territory based out of Colorado and Nebraska including far eastern reaches of Utah, northern Arizona, the Texas Panhandle, a strip of land in northern Oklahoma, another strip in Southern Kansas, and part of western Missouri. Claimed territory includes all of the states they actually control land in, and (less strong) the entirety of the old USA (lower 48 states) Population roughly 8-12 million pending some research. Also, scratch the secrecy, UAR seeks recognition as legitimate successor state to USA much like Siberia does for USSR. Loughery111 23:13, 28 April 2009
 * I fully agree with you that little has been done about survivors in America, but there are reasons why such a state would just not exist. Also just to point out there is an American successor state in the area already: Municipal States of the Pacific (1983: Doomsday).  Remember even though both countries are big, the Soviet Union is much larger and due to Siberia's unique relationship within the USSR has a better chance to survive then a similar place in the US.  Consider that nuclear hits on the west coast are going to cause pollutants and radiation to move east with the weather which will cause damage to placed that were not hit.
 * Still I think a large state could survive in the Great Plains region (I'm assuming that is what you mean by "midwest" since that always seemed to me to mean the states around the Great Lakes). Personally I could see Montana, Wyoming, western Dakotas, western Nebraska and northwestern Kansas.  Nuclear hits in Utah, Missouri, Colorado and the refugee problems caused by them would make it unlikely large numbers of organized communities would survive there.  Parts of Arizona and Oklahoma are too isolated to be involved in this state.  I also find it more likely for the Texas panhandle to join the functioning government of Mexico (1983: Doomsday).
 * I think your suggestion has merit, we can even work it in with the expedition that left the MSP to search the interior, but we need to make sure it fits canon or else we would have to rework the entire TL. I'm glad you dropped the secrecy bit because there is probably a better reason why it took so long to get in contract (EMP, the irradiated desert between Idaho and Nevada, etc.). Mitro 02:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It cold also be a relatively recent creation, like the MSP: at least post-1995, after which the US government-in-exile would have no interest in hooking up with survivors on the Mainland. This could be like the MSP only somewhat larger and more successful: a combination of several local polities into a sort of federation.  If that were the case, the UAR could even cover a wide area, with empty space in between.  The map of the Republic could look like "spots" centered on safe areas around the "state" capitals.  There's certainly room enough in the US for such a country.  The idea of local powers in Canada has come up before as well.
 * FWIW, I had a professor from South Dakota who was baffled that none of us considered her to be Midwestern. (This was in Chicago.)  Benkarnell 02:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * People in Chicago think anything south of Joliet is the Confederate States, haha. Mitro 03:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It almost was ;). (Not quite.) Benkarnell

Both of these seem very reasonable. I had really envisioned a state where the vast majority of claimed territory is, in practice, uncontrolled, with sovereignty exercised only over smaller areas... my thinking is that any federation would claim all of the territory spanning its respective components, but in practice only OWN its core city-states and the crucial transport links connecting them all. I actually have a map looking rather like that on my computer as I was experimenting with what a more realistic UAR would look like... Deep blue for actual control, normal blue for direct claims, light blue for claims made as a successor state to the USA. Loughery111 22:51, 28 April 2009


 * OK. And speaking of Siberia, its inner workings have never really been explored... I imagine that despite the large amount of color on the map, it's something like that as well.  Benkarnell
 * Arguably there would be a lot of villages and small towns that would survive and stay connected thanks to strict surviving Soviet officials, but there is no doubt that there may be claimed territory. I believe according to the World Map only the eastern coast of Canada really survived yet all of Canada is shown under their control. Mitro 03:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My guess for Canada is that the shield region and the Maritime Provinces are somewhat intact, as is the northern portion of Quebec and, of course, the northern half of the area west of the Hudson (it only contains 60,000 people, what's there that's worth shooting?)... I'd say that the St. Lawrence waterway and Southern Ontario are a total loss, and that the Canadian government itself only controls the Shield, Maritime Provinces, and northern Quebec. There is no real reason why the rest wouldn't essentially revert to local or tribal control. -- Loughery111 23:41, 28 April 2009

The older version of the world map showed control, not claims, and it shows more or less the situation you describe (although there wouldn't be a "Nunavut"). Benkarnell 15:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It would seem to be a good idea to revamp the world map to show both. Darker colors for actual control and lighter ones for claims. Anywhere I could put this suggestion that it might actually get followed up on? Loughery111 12:24, 29 April 2009


 * This older version was very improvised and somehow fictional as it included the few established things and some childish ideas by myself. It was created in a stage where I was not seriously considering historical correctness of this TL and it was more of a playground. FOr example Nunavut I just included that way because of my passion for the far away unimportant things in the world...giving it a stage in this TL. NOw back in GErmany I have the resources again to work seriously on things like the world map. Any suggestions Lugery can be out at the Main Talk Page as there are already some. The claims thing will be adressed first but needs a lot of work. Xi&#39;Reney 10:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Then it's nice to see we have the same "passion"... I also love small, remote places. One reason why I find this project so appealing - all the busy, important places are blown up ;)  Benkarnell 20:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Name
I dunno it seems "New United States of America" just doesn't fit, is there another name we could call this country? How would the survivors identify themselves once they realized the old US government is gone? Mitro 16:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

How about the Allied States of America or Federated States of America??


 * I think they would try to refind some regional thing up there...to identify and be proud of... though i got no insight what in this region is hisrorically going on...Xi&#39;Reney 10:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are some ideas: Great Plains Defense Association, the Prairie League, or Provisional Government of the United States of America ? Mitro 01:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Extent of nation
The map on your right is what I think is the most realistic extent of this new nation all things considered. I have even come up some ideas for different regional governments (states?) inside these borders:


 * Montana (Centered around state capitol)
 * Kootenai (Western Montana and parts of Northern Idaho)
 * Absaroka (Portions of southeastern Montana and northern Wyoming)
 * Wyoming (Centered around State capitol)
 * Lakota (covers the western parts of the Dakotas around the Sioux reservations, possibly autonomous)
 * Nebraska (portions of western Nebraska that have survived relatively intact)
 * Kansas (portions of northwestern Kansas that survived relatively intact)
 * Idaho (portions of southwestern Idaho that survived)

I tried to reach 13 for the sake of the flag already posted. I was thinking about the isolated communities mentioned and there may be some scattered around the south and east, but we want to stay away from the west to avoid causing problems to the TL. Southern Utah and parts of Missouri are a possibility. I would avoid going to far south into Arizona, New Mexico, or Texas, since its more likely that any survivors there would look to Mexico since it is closer and stable. We also may want to consider Canada exactly north of the Montana border. After Doomsday survival would be more important then national borders for people cut off from their national governments.

I've been thinking about the history of this region and here is a very rough draft: Doomsday happens and things get tough. No central government, lack of communication. Local governments become the most important. After a few years things get relatively easier, contact between places throughout Great Plains/Midwest (whatever) return. Eventually major leaders realize that they had it relatively easy compared to the rest of the country, but so far there is little to no contact with the rest of the world. Eventually the Sioux begin expanding after declaring independence as the Republic of Lakota. Several communities band together in a military alliance to fight them, it eventually evolves into a nation based off American governmental principles with a few emergency provisions thrown in since things are still hairy in the world. Eventually peace happens between new US and Lakota. Lakota may join eventually as a state, an autonomous member, or may even stay independent despite what I put on the map. Eventually an expedition from the MSP that crosses the irradiated desert between Nevada and Idaho comes upon them and they are reunited with the rest of the world.

Thoughts, comments? Mitro 16:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So, those eight on your list, plus five smaller settlements somewhere else? That sounds good to me.  Benkarnell 19:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that this current article just needs to be scrapped just as you've suggested.


 * As for what you've written I think you're on a good track. I have the following questions/comments


 * Mormons, the Hutterites and other farming communities, + Native Americans, if they could maintain their communities in the aftermath, would be likely sources of a new government.
 * What population centers if any survived?
 * While I'm not a military strategist, I can say that most likely Las Vegas is a nuclear death trap and the prevailing NW winds have likely carried the fall out toward Saint George. At the same time, that time of year the storms come out of the Pacific NW about every three days, so it would be more likely that SE Idaho would be less irradiated.
 * What do you think?--Louisiannan 22:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As for nuclear strikes, I can see them hitting in Wyoming, Montana, etc. because of the silos. Utah, unless it's the population center of Salt Lake/Ogden/Provo that each get a bomb, there are a lot of people in the mountain valleys that would be protected from the immediate blasts -- if Utah was hit at all.  Dunno.  Just my 2cents.--Louisiannan 22:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a hint: try to think cross-border into Southwestern Canada...with the old border becoming history maybe some communities start cooperating. Ican imagine the cities on both sides cooperating with no one willing\able to protect the border of two defunct nations... Or can you imagine a U.S. customs officer or a Mounty standing guard on a borderline in the middle of two deserted countries :)? Passports please,... Xi&#39;Reney 10:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Southern Alberta is filled with US Expats/dual citizens.  I could see them coming on board, if they're not irradiated -- and I still point out the religious communities that could've become a strong force among the survivors, if they haven't been killed off. --Louisiannan 16:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright here are 5 new "states" that bring the number up to 13 so we can keep the flag: Well that gives us 13 states and it should be interesting when writing the history on how Canada got in. Probably going to need a new map though to reflect the Canadian territory. Again though I'm probably not going to get to it anytime soon do to life issues currently. Mitro 17:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Lincoln: located in the small part of the Idaho panhandle that survive
 * Idaho: located in the southeast corner See Below
 * Colorado: small chunk near Nebraska
 * Alberta: portion near Montana
 * Saskatchewan: portion near Montana.


 * I thought Louisiannan's idea about Mormon community sounded about right. Would there have been good reason to nuke Salt Lake City?  Even if there was, there are other population centers in Utah that would have survived, and the Mormons seem more likely to defend one another than to begin marauding and, well, eating each other.  Maybe Utah is a separate entity from this federation.   Benkarnell 21:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is what I was thinking. The deathzones caused by the destruction of Salt Lake City and Denver would be a barrier to any settlements in the south. Mitro 21:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * By that you're meaning that the settlements to the south would become insular? Louisiannan 22:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, they would be cut off from the nation in question both by the devastation and any nomads in the area. Mitro 01:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I would have to politely disagree with your nations borders Louis. My new Republic of Lincoln (I recycled the name) would claim ALL of Nebraska. And since my nation was existing in some form 12 years BEFORE the NAU, I doubt they would allow anyone to claim pieces of their territory. Not that they are agressive, I actually am having them being a quiet diplomatic nation, who want no more terrtiory than the pre-doomsday state of Nebraska. --Yankovic270 13:46, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * I created the NAU, not Louis, I think that is pretty clear from the history of the article and this talk page. That being said you should see Ben's comments of Talk:1983: Doomsday, which I agree with.  Nebraska is a big state and there is a complete likelihood that other parts of the state (especially the most western parts) will go off on their own without Lincoln.  Also though the NAU was founded in the 1990s, remember the members all came into existence shortly after Doomsday.  Lincoln can claim all in wants, but controlling it is a whole other story.  Also the fact that you are designing Lincoln to be the opposite, as you said, of Virginia makes me think that expansion is not a major goal of the state.
 * Furthermore the NAU is canon while Lincoln is only a proposal. Technically Lincoln's history must conform to the already established history of the TL.  The TL should not have to conform to the history of an ungraduated proposal.  Mitro 15:08, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

Fate of Idaho
Much of Idaho that survives is actually claimed by the Mormons -- up until around 1995, when they'll retreat "below" the Mormon Sea -- I'm planning for them to return in 2000, but I suggest that there may be competing claim to the area that will be sorted out soon in a (preferably) non-bloody way. What do you think? --Louisiannan 21:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. That might apply for the southern half but the panhandle may not. Mitro 21:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. The panhandle is out of Utah's desire/scope.  They would only claim the settlements in the Snake River Valley, given that these were all historically settled (for the most part) by Mormons.  See my new map on the Utah page to see where I'm talking about (there's some spill over into Wyoming, too.) --Louisiannan 21:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I Created the UAR
I Created the UAR but did not mean for it to be so contradictory. This new idea is much better though and may very well fit into the TL.--Emanresu11

Little fantastical, isn't it?
Wasn't Barack Obama in Boston at Harvard in 1983...or he'd be back home in Chicago, both major cities that would be hit by several nukes. And wasn't Bill Richardson a US Congressman in 1983, and therefore likely to have been killed in the late-night attack on DC?

Also, there were no missile defense systems ready to go in 1983 but the old ABM systems from the Nixon era, which weren't deployed. If there had been, they would have been around the Capital and SAC and NORAD, not random Midwestern cities.
 * Thats essentially been a major problem, see earlier discussions. Mitro 00:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's move this East of the the Missisipi and see what hatches...
For the record, I encourage lively debate on the adoption of any of my ideas.

Hello everyone! My name is Mr. Troska and I just recently registered here in hopes of adding to this atl. I recently emailed Xireny about my idea for potential succesor state located in the CONUS, but I believe that it would only be tenable if centered around certain areas that were missed in the ensuing salvos.

For instance, I envision a limited government comprised mainly of stay behinds, hardliners and bluebloods; perhaps headed by a surviving cabinet member that we failed to mention previously? I could see this government being carried out in opposistion to the principle, "By the people, for the people" but in reality resembling "For the few, by the few"

I see the following areas of the Eastern United States surviving either due to last minute changes in vectoring, little, or no target value or due to gyroscopic failure in most Soviet nuclear devices:

Fort Greyling, Northern Michigan. Little target value, training facility Fort McCoy, Wisconsin. Of mixed importance Fort Bragg, North Carolina. High value target, shifting importance, or malfunctioning device Fort Dix, New Jersey. Target shifted to a surface warfare group in the North Sea Fort Knox, Kentucky. Target shifted to Anderson AFB Guam. Fort Mcpherson Georgia. Missed in Georgia Pattern SNAFU.

Moody AFB, Georgia. Missed in Georgia Pattern SNAFU. Charleston AFB, North Carolina. Target shifted to secondary hit at Beale AFB. Shaw AFB, North Carolina. Target shifted to Fort Wainwright Alask.

Naval Station Kings Bay Georgia. Missed in Georgia Pattern SNAFU. NAS Atlanta, Georgia. Missed in Georgia Pattern SNAFU NAS Pensacola, Florida. Of little tactical value. Naval Station Ingleside, Texas. Target shifted to Barksdale AFB, secondary hit. Philadelphia Naval Yard. Last minute redirect to the USS Enterprise battlegroup in the mediterranean

Along with several national guard facilities that weren't targeted, barring our interests in Panama and Cuba.

Along with these military targets that were omitted from the tactical plan, were three cities that spared destruction as well:

Philadelphia,PA. Target Shifted to Seal Beach Magazine, Long Beach California. Atlanta,GA. Malfunctioning device Richmond,VA. Target shifted at last minute, though still highly irradiated.

And finally, the Raven Rock Complex, (Alternate National Military Command Center) Mount Weather Emergency Operations Center, and the Greenbrier.

These areas were alternatively spared due to both tactical failure and mission failure of Soviet intelligence and weapons systems. I realize that this is a rather large list for those wishing the complete destruction of the CONUS, but this does not in any way guarantee a perfect modicum of their way of life. The standing "government" will virtually be an oligarcharist regime with authority over the afforementioned places, but with little, if any, order prevailing without the countryside.

The military is small, undersupplied and in it's present state inneffective; staffed with a conscript majority impressed into service under the auspices of "emergency powers". Less than 500 operable aircraft, both civilian and military, are available to this part of the US, and close to 30 ships of the navy survived, but all but 3 are rusting at anchor in Philadelphia, Ingleside, Kingsbay. Those 3 are nuclear submarines, and one may still carry ballistic missiles...

On the whole life is bleak, with little commerical communication and most government traffic being encrypted and low power. Perhaps the presence of a hardline regime equipped with the last of the former nations nukes could be a thorn in the side to a seemingly invincible ANZ Commonwealth? More to come later, Thanks for reading,

(Mr. Troska 23:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)) For the record, I encourage lively debate on the adoption of any of my ideas.

We can't have any bombs going off in Cyprus. Mr.Xeight 00:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Just changed it to Anderson AFB Guam, which can be changed to any other location as well; my rationale behind the change in targeting is that over the course of military planning, targets change on a frequent basis, and perhaps the list of locations that I've submitted were omitted from a list of high priority targets the day, or week previous. The current ambiguity of North America for our purposes, give us much latitude in the development of this time line. All in all, I want the surviving officials left behind in the bunkers to either disregard the suspension of the constitution, or even better so, due to the prevailing chaos outside of their controlled areas, never even know of it at all. I see them living under the radar for a time after the discovery of the Municipal States; eventually, the Commonwealth detects encrypted transmissions coming from East of the rockies and sends members of the SASR or it's Commonwealth equivalent to investigate. And upon penetrating the rockies they find pockets of civilization here and there, but only East of the Mississippi River is where they find the remnant government. An overall population of 15,000,000 survivors living in the East and under the authority of the provisional government.

To elucidate as to the nature of it's military, I see an army in present day of close 50,000 men spread throughout the settled areas and smaller frontier installations, they will be comprised of mainly conscripts and the units will be of mainly National Guard, reserve and the remnant active duty lineages. It's Air Force is mainly the remnants of ANG units that existed East of the Rockies, along with the units that existed at the four previously mentioned air bases. It's number will be closer to 10,000, with most aircraft being grounded for want of spares and fuel. Tactical, transport and rotary wings for the air force officially total 500 on government ledgers, but less that half will be operable.

120 C-130 Hercules, 30 light to medium transports (C-123, C-12 Huron, etc., ) 80 A-7 Corsairs, 80 F-4 Phantoms, 40 F-16's, 80 various helicopters, and about 40 heavy lift, airborne early warning and tanking aircraft. The survival of the Davis Monthan bone yard is open for debate too.

The Navy, Coast Guard and Marines fell by the wayside, with 30 ships rusting at the keel in Ingleside, Kings Bay and Philadelphia, the active navy is limited to 3 nuclear submarines with the rest at anchor for want of fuel. A rough list of surviving combatants is as follows.

Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates

FFG-15 Cliff Sprague FFG-25 Copeland FFG-26 Gallery FFG-30 Reid

Spruance class destroyers

DDG-992 Fletcher DDG-981 John Hancock

Charles F Adams class DDG-12 Robinson DDG-16 Joseph Strauss DDG-15 Berkeley

Farragut class destroyer

DDG-40 Coontz

Ohio Class Submarine

SSBN-657 Francis Scott Key

Los Angeles Class Submarines

SSN-711 San Francisco SSN-707 Portsmouth

Kitty Hawk class aircraft carrier

CV-66 America.

16 miscellaneous support ships, and about 3 dozen ghost fleet vessels that are in decay. (Mr. Troska 02:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC))


 * To finally respond to your detailed suggestions and excellently worked out proposals, Troska !:) I think this will have to somehow find the way into the DD-TL, this I am convinced about. IN the ensuing chaos on the US East Coast I would guess someone from the old governmetn would be able to form a rump state somewhere.

I just back away from deciding this issue or the general discussion about the fate of the inner U.S. because the ongoing debate shows that there are manymany people far more capable then me to do so :)

I will of course try to give my opinion to this; but the U.S regional history, sensitivities and so on is not my special field of knowledge! So please everyone go on this discussion of the USA fate as this is an impressing discussion going on here, profound and detailed ideas! Thank you!!Xi&#39;Reney 13:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Utah and the NAU
Would there be approach to Utah about membership? You also have Idaho listed in twice, and there's some level of claim from Utah on that territory, to keep in mind. Louisiannan 22:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that you have tensions with Utah listed. Let's discuss what tensions may arise.  I don't know that Utah would be too resistant to a mutual protection/non-aggression agreement initially.  There might be some question about the status of Idaho, since most of the people in the area that Utah claims are "ethnic" Mormons.  Let's chat about it. Louisiannan 22:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding, I also made the correction about listing Idaho twice. I'm basing the problems between Utah and the NAU from the map you made showing the disputed lands in Idaho and Wyoming.  The territory seems rather large and I'm worried that makes it more likely that both nations get along coldly.  Despite the Mormon population in Idaho, that is only about 1/5th of the population, and there are no doubt non-Morman survivor communities in southern Idaho that would gravitate toward NAU (and wherever I find a good place to be a capitol).  I'm open to suggestions though as I'm still working on the history of the nation. Mitro 22:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of SE Idaho and Western Wyoming is LDS, actually--there are some Non-LDS communities, but remember that one of the first temples built by the LDS church outside of Utah was the Idaho Falls temple -- and in that day, they only built temples in large concentrations of Mormons.
 * I was under the impression that the western/northern reaches of Idaho were much more a no-man's land, and for that reason the folks in SE Idaho had claimed unity with the Utah/Deseret government. I think that while both "nations" would claim it, there could be some peace accords and movement toward Unity, especially since, 'after all, we're all Americans, right?'
 * What I would suggest is some initial rough times (maybe skirmishes, like the Israelis and Palestinians here), but sincere negotiations in the last year or so have moved the peace process forward, and some sort of accession treaty will be signed bringing Utah into the NAU. --Louisiannan 22:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. We could consider that the migrating nomads actually settled in some of those areas, causing the disputes we see today.  It would be interesting to see the NAU grow because of Utah and maybe even the Committee to Restore the United States of America (1983: Doomsday) pushing the MSP to join up as well... Mitro 23:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I could see them trying to, but the Deseret Militia would've pushed them off -- which could be part of why they went off to war with the Hell's Satans in the MSP.
 * Let's say that they did settle for a time, but they were pushed off initially. Recently under the auspices of negotiations with Deseret and the USA -- they could be settled in Wyoming?  I'm just thinking aloud here.  I'm somewhat intent on the shape of Utah, effectively making the resurgent Lake Bonneville the "Mormon Sea."  What do you think? --Louisiannan 23:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that all of these ideas can be incorporated into a greater vision for North America, but there still stands the issue of life beyond the rockies, and I believe that my vision for the Eastern seaboard can be worked into this timeline as my proposed sites for civilization were not explicitly listed as impact points in the war. (Mr. Troska 03:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

So where does Canada fit in?
According to this page, Alberta and Saskatchewan became part of the NAU. However the Canada article says the prairie provinces, which means the above plus Manitoba. I think Manitoba should be part of this union, if only the southern part. DarthEinstein 17:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The entire provinces aren't going to be a part of the NAU, only the smaller survivor communities near the border that managed to pull through an reconstitute their own version of Canada, but Manitoba may fit in as well. Mitro 17:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I thought. Or perhaps some of Manitoba's territory could be put into Saskatchewan, if it's too small. Also the map needs to be fixed as it only includes the US portion. DarthEinstein 17:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know, I made the map before the idea for the NAU came up. Mitro 18:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Did the city of saskatchewan survive? --HAD 14:42, September 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a city named Saskatchewan? I thought there was only the province. Louisiannan 15:27, September 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no city named Saskatchewan; you're probably thinking of Saskatoon, which is a major city within Saskatchewan. According to our Canada nuke map, it wasn't targeted. However, the main nukes map does show it nuked. Personally, I don't think it was nuked. --DarthEinstein 16:35, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

is Spokane still standing?--HAD 10:55, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

the reason why i asked if Saskatoon was still standing is because if it was it could be a major city in the NAU.--HAD 12:18, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

New map
I made a map that shows territory on both sides of the border. Is this accurate? Benkarnell 03:34, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. It certainly is a hell of a lot better drawn then my first attempt.  Mitro 15:57, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm learning to use a new program (Paint.NET). Did you see how I tinkered with the picture of the Governor General of Micronesia?  I'm really excited about it.  Benkarnell 04:22, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a Mac equivalent to paint.net?--BrianD 05:46, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * Ihave no idea - Ijust found out about it from conversations on AH.com. (BK)

Where are the state borders for Kootenai and Lincoln? And, might I suggest that Kansas extend down to at least Dodge City? In the article I wrote on the nurse I established the survivors going to Scottsbluff, and that no one was aware of a similar community in Dodge City. I would think it'd become the capital of the provisional state government there, unless you wanted to make Hays the capital.--BrianD 05:46, November 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * I based this map on Mitro's earlier ons, so he will have to comment on that. 207.63.140.254 (BK)

Sports
Basketball is huge among just about all tribes in the west. It would probably be huge among the Lakotah post-independence. The language about "American/Canadian sports" is sort of odd. Most Native AMericans are very well integrated into the national culture, though they maintain separate identities. DD leads to the tribe taking over as the national government, and tech levels drop. But the Lakotah aren't going to just lose the last 100 years of cultural evolution and revert to some preconquest state. They're still going to feel quite "American", I think. Benkarnell 04:20, November 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. I wasn't sure about how far from American culture the Lakotah would go. --BrianD 05:47, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Brian wrote the sports section (I copied it from the Sports by country page) I will defer to him. Mitro 23:44, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

I'll adjust it. Thanks, Ben.--BrianD 00:10, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Population
Anyone care to come up with an estimate? Seeing as how this is the first organized authority most people headed out of the plains would find, and the one with the greatest chance of word getting around of its existence, I want to give a ballpark of 5-6 million people. The Midwest is not densely populated, but there weren't many targets outside of defense installations in Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana... so if we assume that roughly 6-8 million in the Midwest survived, and many headed north knowing there would be fewer strikes in lightly populated areas, that suggests that 3-4 wound up here. Then, we can tack on another 1 million from Canada. The remaining million is natural population growth over the last 20 years.--Loughery111 17:49, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are being a little optimistic about how far some people can travel. Remember these are people who haven't experienced a major war on their territory for more than a century.  Famines and major natural disasters are also rare.  Meanwhile both the national and federal government has collapsed and there is no more gas coming in.  A lot of people are going to have to walk.  Technology has made the world seem smaller, but when you realize how far it is just to get to the other end of your neighborhood, walking to a non-target area could be too much for someone.  I'm going to go with 3.5.  Mitro 23:42, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * I recently read a post-apocalyptic book (a kids' book, admittedly, but a good one) in which the main form of long-distance transport is trucks pulled by oxen. We might see some of that.  Probably not 3-4 million people's worth. Benkarnell 02:09, November 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * 3 million. It's most likely people would stay put in their geographic regions and try to survive the best they can. --BrianD 02:14, November 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * I really think that's a bit low. Probably 3 million people survived in or near lands the NAU owns to begin with, I'd say the population has to have at least grown by a quarter in the past 25 years, even assuming less migraton than I think would happen.  So even without the migration we're still looking at around 4 million or a little more, not 3.  Anyone else have a concrete number they want to toss out there?--Loughery111 03:28, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Membership
Mitro, let's plan to have the subject of membership in the NAU brought up to West Texas in the next few weeks, the reason being that West Texas wants stronger ties with everyone in the region including the NAU. I don't want to close the country off to the possibility of NAU memebership.--BrianD 02:57, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, though I added West Texas saying no because that is what it says on the . Mitro 03:15, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Initially they did, because of the isolationism thing. I suppose people in Texas are realizing that membership may be a good thing. I guess we need to discuss what would be the storyline benefits of having West Texas join?--BrianD 03:23, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * My concern is that West Texas is still some distance from the NAU. It is seperated by both Utah and unciviled wasteland.  Good relations is one thing but any membership would probably not happen for some time.  Mitro 04:14, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * I forgot that. West Texas actually could trade through Colorado, but TTL they are probably too far away to be involved day-to-day. The business leaders might be looking just at the economic pluses of membership and not the practical challenges distance presents. Plus I need to look at the U.S. thing: Texas nationalism may be cemented in the minds of the people 26 years on.--BrianD 04:21, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe that will become a political touchstone in Texan politics: Join the union or not? Are you a NAUoseptic or a NAUophile?  Benkarnell 04:26, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Only among the CRUSAites :) Most people advocating for it in Texas see $$$.--BrianD 04:35, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edits
Well it took several months but I finally finished the history of the NAU. Please comment on them. Mitro 04:15, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * My initial thoughts are you did a good job. I enjoyed reading your history; I had wondered how the NAU had developed.--BrianD 04:23, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking of changing the flags of the NAU and the US. Thoughts?  Mitro 04:29, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Between the NAU, San Juan, Samoa, Superior, and now Micronesia, we do have a lot of plain blue flags with stars on them. I wouldn't mind a change.  What would you do with the USA flag?  Just decrease the stars?  Benkarnell 05:15, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * The flag I have now for the NAU was found on the internet and emphasizes the OTL NAU proposal of the US, Canada and Mexico. I would rather have something that is slightly more original.  As for the US, yes maybe having less stars would be better.

How about a flag that emphasizes red and white - colors that the TTL U.S. and Canadian flags have in common - along with the blue of the US flag and the colors of the Lakotah flag?--BrianD 05:38, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * How good are you making flags? Mitro 17:58, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * flag of Canamerica sound good to this, i think, look--Fero 18:05, November 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know, the Canadian maple leaf is too prominent. I'm not sure that many Americans would approve.  Mitro 18:53, November 21, 2009 (UTC)