Talk:1983: Doomsday/Politics 2

East Asia

 * Okay, so it has been established that China had ICBM's, though no more than I estimate that 16 could have been used in the time from the Soviet Launch, to the Chinese realization, to the Chinese launch. DF-5A's are excluded, as they would take between 40-60 minutes to fuel, and this was during a time of relative calm for the PRC. Most would be aimed at troop concentration of the Soviet Union in Eastern Siberia, with the DF-4's being sent toward Moscow, Leningrad, Sevastpool, and Murmask. Other sites would be Vladivostok, Novosibirsk, Chita, Khabarovsk, Vilyunchinsk, Ussuriysk, Belogorsk, and any other important sites and major troop concentrations. India, Tawain, and South Korea would NOT be hit, since it would be determined that it would be carried out by airborned forces, which never got off the ground (100 or so nukes were meant to be deployed this way). Pyonyang, Seoul, and Busan are destroyed on the Korean Peninsula in the midst of the Second Korean War.
 * India, however, is not hit. Over the next couple days, it is decided to retake Kashmir, and Pakistan is threatened with destruction if they refuse to hand over the remainder. They refuse. India proceeds to drop nuclear weapons on Rawalpindi, Karachi, Lahore, and Islamabad. Pakistan is largely occupied by India over the next couple months. However, the situtation in India quickly deteriorates due to social unrest, fallout from radiation, collapse of the international market, etc. The country as a nation does not survive through 1984, and Balkanizes. The only difference "here" is that Pakistan also fails to unify, being contested by numerous Islamic warlords and ethnic groups. Lahbas 17:14, November 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we assume that these would be the main targets in Siberia for the Americans as well? I'd like to know,since I have to make some changes to Siberia.--Vladivostok 19:06, November 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * Are the Korean cities destroyed by conventional or nuclear means? And who would have won the Second Korean War?--BrianD 04:51, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Alaska
As the Alaska Article is still marked as proposal and I am going through the Soviet Siberia material now I would like to place some critical remarks on the SIberian attack on Alaska and the "Alaska territory" as a whole.


 * 1. motivation for Siberia? I have strong doubts that after a nuclear holocaust and after only a few after Doomsday the Siberian Government - barely able to have survived- would have any true motivation to get real and formal influence in Alaska...
 * VAST territories are around them on the same continent in Western and Southern direction, furthermore most of them old Soviet/Russian territory potentially welcomeing every Soviet Successor with open arms. This territory being full of resources and of future high potential would me as Siberian leader interest more ! And there NO force would be really able to set up resistance...
 * Alaska must be heavily radiated and nuked, given the important military infrastructure (radar, NORAD, Air Force, Nuclear Bomber airports etc.)


 * Alaska is seperated from Siberia by a harsh and COLD water. Every transportation and later military operations will face severe harshness-


 * I especially object the depicted Alaskan Invasion in 1989..reasons:


 * Military:ANZUS PAct/ANZUS order already placed in 1984 gathering a lot of military hardware from U.S. / NATO and a succesful reorganisation into the Commonwealt Army (even though not named that yet) should be fairly enough to 5 years later outclass or at least match any Siberian Expeditionary force, although I do not know that much about the Soviet Pacific Fleet and the capabilities...


 * Any tries in this direction from Siberia would be met with fierce and decisive resistance from the Provisional Bush Administration and Australia /New Zealand and the Alaskans as well.


 * Focussing on Mongolian, Mandchurian or other territories in the region does seem moch more realistics IMO, if you need sth. to happen.


 * Economy: **Imagine a government just reestablished a few years ago in country which is still rebuilding its economy in 1989...and heavily depending / interested on selling its raw materials and importing food...And simply asked: Who would pay the necessary funds for the large military operation?


 * Inner politics: I would suppose a population and especially the military (if not the generals, then the normal soldiers, see 1917 revolution) would never support such a military adventure. The forces would emphasize the importance of securing the homefront.

This a few arguments I would bring up against the Soviet/Siberian presence in Alaska in general and the depicted invasion in general.--Xi&#39;Reney 21:56, November 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * We would need to establish, then, just what was hit in Alaska, as well as the yield of each explosion. Your arguments make much sense, Xi'Reney, but I keep thinking that no one knew the state of the entire world in 1984 and that the oil in Alaska would be attractive to someone. Indeed, in the "free Alaska" article it's established that the country sells the oil along the pipeline. And, although it's true there is oil in Siberia, they probably had no idea of the status of the world's biggest sources of oil, namely the Middle East. The thought might have been that they needed to get their hands on as many resources as they could. And, though it was a U.S. state, Alaska is much closer to Siberia than Arabia, Indonesia, Venezuela or Nigeria, and Siberia may have thought it would run only into deer, polar bears and a few people whose arms would offer no resistance to the Siberian military might. In other words, Siberia could have thought things would go one way, and they actually went another.--BrianD 22:17, November 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * Taking your point Brian I agree with an ambivalent position in Siberian strategy...and not ruling out the Siberian interest...But retrieving and protecting the Alaskan oil would surely be a top priority for the ANZUS nations...sending everything militarily useful they get up there. Hawaii becoming the crucial strategical point/port etc. This even IMO heightens the probability for the scenario described above.

and where else to get it from then territory nominally in their control? I invented some "Australia expanding into Indonesia for getting oil very eraly in TTL." BUt imagine a country like Australia and New Zealand trying to maintain a vast fleet coming in from all over the world...They would naturally launch very early (1984/85) a mission to secure the reachable oil...this Operation "Oilwell" or sth. alike would get top priority...!!! Establishing ports in Alaska/ securing what they have...statining carrier groups in and around Alaska, submarines etc. Then establishing a regular shipping route for oil crossing the Pacific.. !

because the Commonwealth would run out of oil quite quickly and all US fleet would be stranded somewhere, hindering all serious tries to maintain some influence/way to protect things... I will put this on the FUndamental talk as I would guess oil (and other resources) would be at least in the short run be a top priority (after restructuring at least to the minimal level of stability.) for all and every entities playing mroe than a local role... We should have listened to MAD MAX... damn-.. :) --Xi&#39;Reney 18:29, November 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you Xi'Reney,the attack,considering all the vast resources the USSR has on its own continent which I did mention on their page,seems to make no sense. But simply consider the fact that 6 years after the nuclear exchange,the Siberians didn't know whether to trust the Australians or not,as they were allies of the Americans. They would attack out of fear,sort of a shot first,ask questions later tactic. When I started writing,there was no mention of the Australians being anywhere near Alaska,not until 1987,so I assumed that some help would come from the Socialist Union. I took into account everything already said on this subject in the TL,and wrote something corresponding to that. I'm glad that a discussion has finally started on seeing what to do about Alaska and the distribution of resources in the world.--Vladivostok 19:27, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Hellerick's grand master plan for Alaska was/is that the West Alaskans actually sought out the Soviets, looking for aid. I can certainly imagine a small Soviet ship either deliberately exploring the coast of Alaska, or else blown off course. When it finds people they say, "We're starving, we have no medical supplies, please, help us." Either that, or some Alaskans themselves sailed to the Russian coast looking for somebody who could help them. Either way, the Soviets were established in Alaska by the late 80s, when the ANZUS nations were finally made aware of their presence. There was fighting, and a cease fire border was drawn. I think that's a damn good story, personally. And it's perfectly plausible, because oce the Soviets were established on the west coast, they would not want to leave and might well defend their position if attacked or ordered to get out. Benkarnell 23:19, November 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * Good points, all. Xi'Reney, I would expect the APA to have sent something up there c. 1984 or 1985 to examine the state and see which natural resources (oil) were still salvagable. --BrianD 00:16, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

Reading your thoughts I see a quite plausibility for some kind of Siberian presence in 2009, influence in Alaska, though not much more then an outpost being there. The military operation and conflict as described in the article I still discard as being non-suitable... Though thinking through some things imagine sth. like this:
 * Immediately after Doomsday there might have been intense conventional skirmishes along the border, like fighters roaring around, naval, submarine activity, something...after some time the units cease the senseless fight and retreat.
 * Life going extreme in Alaska for some time... Not really contact for Mainland Alaska with the outer world as all are occupied by themselves.
 * Along with the "Gathering Order" and the convening NATO units the APA tries to get info on territories of the US...Having Hawaii, still information flows from/to Alaska. THey could send a mission out there to see what is going on...At some point they com into contact then with the Siberian (then still rebuilding)... exchange of fire, retreat, "who come the war is over?"-events leaving deep distrust between everyone...resulting in the APA/ANZC trying to secure Alaska before any influence can be made
 * THen a gap which i am thinking on...
 * Then somewhen an ease in relations opens the way for a limited cooperation regarding Alaskan oil ... Maybee we can get some technicians from Siberia being specialist to drill oil in ice-tundra-regions coming to help...or st, like that. APA hesitating strongly, but Commonwealth seeing things more practical...

A major canon issue: Any prevailing conflict/large distrust between ANZC and Siberia would inevitably avoid any foundation of the League of Nations. And the effect of this on the Timeline!!!???!!!.. --Xi&#39;Reney 22:38, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it? The LoN was founded 25 years after Doomsday. That's quite a long time for a lot of things, including nations to work out their differences.--BrianD 22:49, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * There's sort of been the attitude that no country can participate in the LoN unless its government is democratic and free of corruption, and its disputes are allsolved with other countries. The LoN exists to solve such probems!  If the ANZ and USSR still had disputes, well, they could use the LoN as another platform for discussing them.  Right?  Benkarnell 23:51, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the issue of trust has been answered,since hostilities stopped in 1989,its been 20 years since any fighting took place,and that could have eased some tension. The main reason for war was the Cold War and, obviously, the nuclear war. But, since Xi'Reney wants something earlier to take place,I agree with Ben,the LoN could solve their problems.--Vladivostok 13:30, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Texas
I'm considering building towards a reunification of West Texas and eastern Texas into a Republic of Texas. Please let me know if you think it's realistic, or if the two countries need to be split. They're not at war, and there's no reason for anything beyond a few eastern Texans being mad that West Texas didn't get out there sooner.--BrianD 15:35, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

Also, a unified Texas would give me an excuse to use Clint Dempsey in the timeline; he's a soccer/football player for the U.S. men's national team and for Fulham FC in England. I've established West Texas as having tremendous interest in soccer, and see its national team as influenced by the Mexican style (since many of the players are immigrants or sons of immigrants from Mexico) and a possible dark horse in the CONCACAF region. --BrianD 19:56, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

On a more serious note, I want to establish Mexico as a West Texas ally. I've spent much time in the history of West Texas explaining how the split between the two countries occurred, and the conservative-led government's staunch isolationism as a reason why relations never were reestablished. I also want to establish how, as Americans gained power and influence in the government and in society, Mexico began to look north. To see what was there and, if anyone was alive, to establish relations. There is still the 'your war' anti-American sentiment among a few Mexicans, but everyone pretty much understands that the Soviets fired the missiles in offense. I want Mexico to be a player in North America initially in two ways: reestablish good relations with West Texas (with G.W. Bush playing a big role in mending fences), and a proactive role in leading LoN aid and reconstruction efforts in the southern U.S.. --BrianD 19:56, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Wait, don't the Texans not like the Mexicans because the Mexicans pulled out of the northern states leaving Texas on its own? --DarthEinstein 20:13, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

That was the government, Darth. The two peoples never had any problem with each other. Although I never really fleshed it out, the chaos in Mexico following the Mexico City earthquake, combined with anti-American sentiment among some influential Mexican military leaders, led Mexico to pull away from West Texas. The military leaders were angry over what they saw as the "forced" abandonment of their territory, and deaths of some of their people, as a result of the "American" war. They managed to convince enough of the other military and government leaders that West Texas would probably die off sooner than later, and mexico needed to tend to its affairs rather than those of a dying nation. Although the military enforced the 'ban' on West Texas, many people, who had relatives on either side of the Rio Grande, found ways to evade the Mexican guards (West Texas looked the other way). West Texas leaders realized that officially they could say 'no relations with Mexico', but that actually enforcing it among its own people would be impossible. Therefore the official position on isolationism in regards to politics and trade, while looking the other way in regards to informal meetings between people. In short, the people wanted to get out there long before their government would let them. --BrianD 20:29, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

The Ohio discussion going on above makes me want to reiterate something regarding West Texas: its claims on the entire state of former Texas do not mean it can control the entire state. It doesn't really have the manpower to guard every inch of the border; it's going to be doing well to extend its reach into El Paso, down to South Padre Island and into Waco. Even if it merges politically with east Texas, it is not going to control the entire former state. Too much territory, too few people. In fact, West Texas probably will request help from Mexico in securing the port. It's one thing to claim an entire region with no one there, another when you have to deal with isolated bands of raiders and bandits and whatever the heck else is out there, in Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Coahuila, Tamaulipas.--BrianD 03:54, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

JFK Jr. in India on Doomsday

 * Would he survive the post-war chaos? What would happen to him? Lahbas 02:32, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

considering India fellapart on DD and there was no food he might have survived only to become someone dinner--Owen1983 02:59, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Not funny, Owen.--BrianD 03:01, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

I think there might be an interesting story in there. He'd probably liive as any other survivor or refugee - no White Rajah Kennedy empire! - but later on, if the APA or ANZC found him, I could see him getting some kind of diplomatic role. Benkarnell 13:05, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Cannibalism is no joke. Anyway, if the was in the portion of India that became the UIP, he might be able to get himself to the ANZC. --Yankovic270 03:12, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Indonesia Singapore
''moved from my talk page, Xi REney If I am reading the history page on Indonesia properly, you were the originating author. I'm working on Singapore, and Benkarnell suggested to me I develop Malaysia as well as Singapore. Did you have any ideas for either country while working on the Indonesia concept? Thanks!--BrianD 05:03, November 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * True, it was pretty much the first region I wrote about in detail, though not filling in a 100 percent...Aceh (1983: Doomsday) describes by far the most about Indonesia and the whole Region. HIndonesian_Region_political_2008_1983Doomsday.png

You have basically the Islamic Indonesian Islands League [Indonesia (1983: Doomsday)... (my name for it then) retreating to solidify the core of the country. Aceh gaining independence (fight as described) and declaring itself the Sultanate of Aceh. I based this on the TRUE try from Hossein de Tiri some time before 1983 and put his cousin (fictional) in power. Malaysia I only mentioned in passing: '' The relative stability encouraged Sultan di Tiro in expanding the Aceh territory behind the traditional borders. Having assured the assistance of a fragile Islamic Extremist government in Malaysia by 1992, he proclaimed the whole Island of Sumatra as Acehnese territory and let his troops head south. '' Malaysia I put on crumbling (though no details) and East Malaysia (Sarawak) I put together with Brunei declaring their own sultanate (as it somewhen has already been), argueing with the IIIL over Borneo...

About Singapore I never said sth as I can remember... Vision: As being not bombed (I guess), I would guess the already strict rule of the government maintains order. cooperation with IIIL government to secure country, especially against the Malaysian Islamist Regime (as marked on the map until 1999 in existance. It would have a influential role in Asia at least, given the important port/airport/financial institutions...being at the crossroads for trade roads... and one of the largest stock-markets surviving.--Xi&#39;Reney 22:41, November 21, 2009 (UTC)This for orientation and a frame for your writing.
 * Xi'Reney, thank you very much. This is very very helpful for me. --BrianD 22:46, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Superior Armed Forces

 * Just to explain, the "reserve" that is mentioned in those pages are actually people that are eligable to be drafted "back" into that armed service. They do not actually serve unless they are called upon. Lahbas 21:06, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Population of Superior
Lahbas and I have been debating the population of Superior for some time now. We had finally come to an agreement of 1,400,000 but now Lahbas believes that there would 300k more people living there due to the fact that the winds would not carry that much fallout into the area. What do you all think the population of Superior is? Mitro 15:28, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * Gosh, even 1.4 million seems ridiculously high. The UP today has only 300,000!  The all-time high was in the 1920 census, and that was only 332,500 .  The 1980 census counted 320,000 people.  I understand that Superior absorbed lots of refugees.  But this would be balanced by a number of factors.  First and foremost is the carrying capacity of the land.  It's not the most hospitable place to raise crops or people.  Superior sponsored a massive agricultural program, yes.  But nature imposes its limits.  Hand in hand with carrying capacity is the problem of limited resources.  Hunger would be a problem not just in the camps, but among the Yoopers themselves.  There would not be enough food to sustain an ordinary American diet.  Crops would be limited by the land, whose already low arability would be worsened by windborne radiation - a real factor even if winds dispersed the worst of it.  The article mentions fish, but the Great Lakes would not be as bountiful as they once had been because of the pollution from Doomsday.  Lake Superior, which is (I think) not bordered by any direct targets, would be better off than Huron/Michigan, but still affected.  And that doesn't even take into account the scarcity of medical supplies and new clothing, all of which would formerly have been imported into the UP, and which would contribute to a lower population.  Finally, birth rates everywhere will be lower because of background radiation, the scarcity of food and supplies, and the overall more chaotic state of the world.  Higher death rates, lower birth rates... even with the refugees, Superior would be lucky to maintain the 320,000 population level through the 1990s, followed by some growth as standards of living genuinely improved in the 2000s.  But not to the point of 1.4 million.  Not even to one million.  I do not doubt the virility of the rugged men of Superior, nor the nubility of Superior's lovely women... but one can only produce so many babies in circumstances like this.  (And, indeed, many of the rugged men of Superior, with their tragically irradiated sperm, are probably not as virile as they appear at first glance.)  Benkarnell 16:04, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you completely. I used similar arguments when Lahbas originally listed the population as 7 million.  Arguably we also have to take into account the parts Superior controls outside of the UP (northern Wisconsin, northern LP Michigan and tiny enclaves in Ontario).  Still I understand your point that even that wouldn't rise the number that high.  Mitro 17:22, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. Those outlying areas would be the only ones to experience population growth due to refugees.  Superior's policy was to settle refugees in Mackinaw and Wisconsin, so the UP itself would have experienced a steady decline throughout the 80s and 90s due to low birth rates and high death rates.  The population loss for the Republic as a whole would then be offset by the new settlements outside the original borders.  But in the camps, birth rates would be even lower than in the UP itself, and death rates much, much higher, especially infant mortality.  You're looking at a return of third world diseases, both in the camps and in the UP, until enough experts can be drafted to re-invent some modern cures.  A year 2000 population of 200,000 in the UP, and 100,000 in the outlying areas, seems generous, IMO, and then you have to add a decade of natural growth and immigration from lawless regions.  Half a million is the highest estimate that sounds plausible to me, but then, the thought process I just went through is hardly scientific.  Benkarnell 19:12, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing I shot myself in the foot here. Anyway, I removed the proposal. It's back down to original numbers. A lot of my orginal reasoning is on the original talk page. The large population of the region before Doomsday, as a whole, is a major cause in my stubborness. As it is, I cannot realistically see the population being below 1.4 million given its circumstances. Lahbas 21:32, November 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * By "the region" you mean the entire Great Lakes region. But there;s a difference: the Great Lakes region as a whole can support a large, dense population.  The Upper Peninsula cannot.  Neither can the heavily wooded territory regions.  I'm not disputing that lots of refugees came in the direction of the UP - maybe, maybe, maybe 4 million of them.  But hardly any of them would have lived, because the land cannot support that many people.  You say that famine was "averted early on" without explaining how.  The Yoopers would have had an extremely difficult time raising enough food for themselves, much less millions and millions of refugees.  The land and the lakes are not unlimited.  Indeed, with the radiation, they are more limited than ever.  And if, by some miracle, there were enough fish that first year to feed that many people, well, there would have been none left the following year.  They'd all be eaten.  Any number with six figures seems completely absurd in that area, given the survival needs of the people, the ability of the land to provide for them, and the downward pressures on the population for years after the event.  Benkarnell 22:05, November 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at the page again, I realized the major error I had made in explaining that crisis. What happened was that while farming was occuring to an extent already, it quickly proved inadequete by 1984, following the rise in refugees. Rations that were meant to last for maybe a decade were reduced to a year or two (also, you must remember that the refugees were on lower rations than either the citizens or the soldiers). Fishing eventually became the major source of food, but it was already determined that at this rate it wouldn't last. As a result, a process of aquaculture is created during the same period of the "Fisherman's Blitz" in 1985, in order to deal with the expected loss in the following years. Carnivirous fish, such as Salmon, are left alone, since they are going to require other fish. At the same time, the government bans all fishing in the Great Lakes from 1986-1991, and then allows liscenced fishing for scientific purposes from 1991-1996, before fully restoring fishing rights to the general population. Farming remains as is, and is given a priority in the territories which have not been affected by fallout. Lahbas 04:39, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if that did happen I still doubt the population would break 1 million. Mitro 15:15, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Major Political Families in the United States
''Lists moved to.
 * These hurt to write. Lahbas 06:50, November 17, 2009 (UTC)