Talk:1983: Doomsday

Before you start editing, please read the Editorial Guidelines.
 * Archive 1
 * Archive 2
 * Archive 3

Ecumenical Council of the Falklands (formerly titled "Falkland Islands")
There seems to be some confusion regarding the Falkland Islands. According to the world map its a part of the Celtic Alliance. According to the country profiles its disputed between South America and Australia. Finally according to Falkland Islands (1983: Doomsday) the islands are a part of Rhodesia. We really need to come to a consensus regarding these islands since this problem is across several articles. Mitro 17:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All the claims could be true... Louisiannan 19:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but the islands just don't have a unified history across the articles. For example according to the main TL the islands voted to join Rhodesia in 2003, but according to the Falkland article it was 1984.  Also it seems to be that the most logical owner of the islands would be ANZS. Mitro 19:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like we need the Ecumenical Council of the Falklands to meet. --Louisiannan 19:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, nice. Mitro 21:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Called to order.
 * I think Argentina is most likely. It was stable and close, and the Falklanders needed supplies.  All those overseas powers would have been utterly incapable of helping Falkland out before the 90s or so, and by that time the Argentines would have gotten there and taken over.  I don't think the Falklanders would have minded, either - yes, I'm sure they were quite happy to be British in '82, and happy about winning the war and all that, but nuclear cataclysm tends to make people re-evaluate things.
 * Even if the Falklanders were keen on rejoining a British nation in the 90s or 00s, by then I doubt the Argentines were going to give them up. They had already fought one war over the islands, and were by then more willing and able to fight another than any other takers, IMO.  I don't see the Celts or Aussies risking a war, and the Rhodesians were probably not strong enough to take Argentina on.  Benkarnell 20:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * From a pure logistical standpoint of military support, Rhodesia, ANZC and the CA all have significant oceanic travel standing in the way of military conquest, whereas for the Argentines, it's a small strait away. --Louisiannan 20:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Falkland was conques in 1984, become argentine control and administration and flakpeople can choise, get in a shit and try come some british isle in the ocean, or become argentine citizen, maybe in the 90" and 00" South Africa (or brisih something), CANZ and Celtic do something, but in 80" falk become Malvinas. i will back later--Fero 20:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it unlikely that so soon after Doomsday that Argentina would launch a military conquest, especially considering that Argentina would have its hands full with the economic, political, and environmental problems caused by Doomsday. Also there would still be a British military presence so soon after the Falkland War, which makes me think that the island would be drawn toward Australia since its relatively intact and would have a strong military thanks to the Gathering order.  Still there are strong arguments that Argentina might gain control of the islands eventually, it just seems unlikely so soon after Doomsday. Mitro 21:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * However, the invasion of the Falklands was only repelled due to the quick action of the RAF -- there was no RAF, and Australia and Rhodesia were much more concerned with consolidation and survival than some far-flung set of islands that pretty much only produce sheep. --Louisiannan 21:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but 1984 still seems an unlikely time for Argentina to "conquer" the islands. Would they really expend the effort so soon after doomsday for islands that "only produce sheep" when they may not be secure enough to launch such an attack?  Despite not being targeted they too would be feeling the effect of WWIII, even if only indirectly.  I'd be happier with sometime later or a peaceful transition as suggested by Ben. Mitro 21:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose it comes down to this: Did Reynaldo Bignone lose the October 1983 election? Would public opinion have been swayed by the events of September, enough that Bignone would have remained in power instead of losing to Raúl Alfonsín?  If so, it might be more likely that military prestige/leadership would push for the effort.  I think what we have to do is decide what happened in Argentina before we can proceed with any sense of coherency.  And in so-doing we avoid the necessity to revisit what should otherwise be QSS.  Does that make sense?  (Little fuzzed--taking Benadryl because of stupid allergies.) --Louisiannan 22:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * According to this TL the elections were suspended, but according to the Argentina article Raul Alfonsin is president in 1984. Thought you would like to know.  Mitro 13:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * just say, that Discourse and Debate is nice... and Falklands was really conquest for a "few" army (a fraction of argentine army, the rest was stay in the continent) in 1982 and days before a great army (a fraction of UK army) reconquers there, but almost british army was fall in 1983, and in 1984 (or near) 2000 falklands "sheeper" have not much defence power for itself, that is what i think--Fero 04:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The size of the militaries is not my concern, what is in that in little over a year (or slighlty more) after a nuclear WWIII that Argentina will not be in the shape to conquer anything. The indirect effects of the war will hamper Argnetina to do anything outside its borders while its deal with its own interior issues for some time.  For Argentina to conquer the Falklands in 1984 will only work if the alien space bats lend them a hand.  Besides according to this TL Argentina would already be "absorbing" Uruguay in 1984 and digesting that would make a conquest of the Falklands even more problematic (not to mention odd that no one else in South America seemed to care that Argentina just invaded them for no reason).  A peaceful acquistion as Ben suggested would work.  Mitro 13:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, I just want to be sure we think it through before we go making decisions willy-nilly and have to retcon a bunch of information. --Louisiannan 14:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree completely (especially since I found another inconsistency regarding the Falkland Islands) and some good research is needed. Either way though the map is going to change because I doubt the Celts are going to keep them. Mitro 14:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * @Mitro - I would think that by 1984 the Falklanders would be hungry and in need of electricity. According to Wikipedia, in the 1980s the islands didn't have a diverse agriculture and would have relied on imports for non-sheep food products.  Argentina could acquire the Falklands quite easily in the Aftermath era simply by saying, "You want our food and power, you follow our rules."  How could the islanders possibly say no?  They needed to live.  Benkarnell 15:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is essentially what I have been supporting, a peaceful acquisition, its the hostile, military conquest that Fero has suggested which I find unlikely. So should I begin changing the mentions of the Falkland islands or is there any other points?  (Note: I'm not very artistic so someone else has to tackle the map)  Mitro 15:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd at least give it a couple of days so the more Britwank-minded people can participate in this, er, Ecumenical Council. Benkarnell 15:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've made changes regarding the Falkland Islands, hopefully everyone finds them plausible and acceptable. Mitro 20:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * nice changes, i think we can add a posible name change to "Malvinas" the spanish/argentinian name and a posible new inmigration from the continent to the islas and viseversa, very posible by parent of argentinian soldiers dead in the 1982 war, and the posible of spanish become the mainly languaje in the isla maybe to the 90´ --Fero 01:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Other nuclear weapons
I was just thinking, what happened to the nuclear arsenals of the UK, France, India and Israel? Mitro 15:57 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would assume it had been sent against warsaw pact targets. --Marcpasquin 16:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZMwKPmsbWE.
 * Somewhat more seriously, the UK and France no doubt launched theirs as part of the NATO/Warsaw Pact melee.
 * Israel and India: They'd have no reason to launch their missiles. So one can assume the nukes remained while society collapsed around them.  And - wow - the only result of such a scenario can be a series of "small" nuclear wars in the meantime, since whatever warlord faction ended up with the nukes certainly put them to use.  And meanwhile, the Great Powers are without any nukes of their own, so no deterrent.  Scary!  Benkarnell 16:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty much what I have been thinking. I have no idea what was likely to happen to Israel.  Best case scenario: the Unity League is now a nuclear power (Mr.Xeight may need to comment on this).  Worst case sceanrio: some 2-bit warlord in the Middle East is now nuclear.
 * For India I think the worst case scenario applies to them, which means the history of the India articles needs to be revised.
 * A big question is how many nukes did either nation have since they had only recently gone nuclear by the time DD happened (both in the 70s).
 * I wonder if one of the survivor nations might have attempted (or attempt now) to track down any remaining nukes and deactivate them? Mitro 17:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Remember, nuclear weapons require a LOT of MAINTENENCE. And that means an economic and resource and educated manpower base to draw on.  Likely they degenerated in their storage facilities and bunkers.97.82.131.34 02:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I would be fine with nuclear weapons as a defense only. I can assure the LoN that the UL will never actually use them, only to bluff with. Mr.Xeight 17:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that's the hope - that a former NATO power would have them, rather than a bunch of guys riding around on horses or camels. But why would Greece/Turkey have any nukes?  Were they just not launched during the war?
 * When I said the Unity League has nukes I meant they gained control of Israel's After DD. Mitro 17:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The UL would be a natural choice for rounding up Israeli nukes. X8, if you really want a mandate for the UL romping around in other nations, securing nukes would be an excellent pretext for occupying Israel/Palestine.  The world would practically beg them to do it, actually.  Benkarnell
 * first. Israel and India big cities and administration-militaries cities, was or not? nuked by WarsacPact or Nato, why? what say our nukedmap 1983, what that map must say, (i upload a week ago nuked japan to the original, nukening every USA military base in japan)--Fero 18:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Israel might have been nuked due to their relationship with the US, but I doubt India would be. They were one of the founders of the non-aligned movement and even though they signed a treaty of friendship with the USSR in the 70s, would that really mean the US/NATO would target them if the USSR attacked first? Mitro 18:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

How much of the Levant (or the Middle East for that matter) would the UL be responsible for? Modern Day Israel, the area of Britain's Mandate of Palestine? Mr.Xeight 18:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * in think UN not support Mandates (colony)in the 80" and our LN not support New Mandates (colony, ocupation) in this TT, but in OTL (real world) UN not support ocupation of Iraq and you can see what is happen.--Fero 18:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparantly if the top minds of this TL suggested it; they don't care. Sorry to be the one to inform you this pero el mundo no tengo equalidad. Gente son enslaved por gente. That's how el mundo works, not with people sticking up with each other. Este es realismo. Mr.Xeight 18:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * They may have gone in before this year, so pre-LoN. But even the LoN would support an occupation in order to secure nuclear weapons.  The danger to the earth is enormous.
 * And there's precedent for colonization - South America and ANZ have jointly occupied Cape Town for a while now. And the Municipal States were similarly imposed upon the Californians by South America and ANZ.  Benkarnell 18:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * people slave people, a ugly traditional truth, but people do revolution against slavers. we need a table about territories occuped/occuping and what is her position (colony, protectorade, mandate, associated state), maybe like part of the List of Nations--Fero 19:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is my idea for what happened in this scenario: The deteriorating situation in India gets worse when one of the factions uses a nuclear weapon. Whether he uses more or other factions get their own I’m not sure, but either way the rest of the world leaders have a mass panic attack. Australian and South American leaders meet and decide to make an accounting of the world’s nukes. They all agree that the nuclear arsenals of the US, the USSR, the UK, and France were all used in DD. India is problematic (will tackle that later), but Israel is even more so because there is little info available on where or how many they have. The leaders, however, decide a mission must be undertaken to find the weapons. They approach the Unity League (I’m assuming this happens post-1987) and ask them to carry out an expedition to find the weapons. The leaders promise supplies, tools and specialists to disarm the bombs if the UL can provide protection and any other materials needed. To sweeten the deal Australia and the South American nations agree to recognize the Middle East as the Unity League’s sphere of influence. The UL agrees and the expedition sets off. Whether they discover the weapons or not I’m unsure (not even truly sure if Israel would have been attacked during DD or whether its still a stable nation) but as the UL looks for the bombs they create a base of operations and alliances among the factions eventually establishing the foundation of a stable government in the area that eventually joins the UL. Thoughts? Mitro 15:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it makes sense. But I wouldn't think the UL would be 100% successful - at least one attempt is likely to result in an awful war that blows up in their faces.  Look at the trouble Western occupiers have had in OTL creating stable nations in the Middle East.  In 1983DD, there is even more instability.  Palestine might end up something like South Africa - a small UL-occupied zone, a couple of friendly statelets, and some lawless regions.
 * Regarding the other question, even if Israel is not attacked, I see some level of collapse. The military would be able to maintain a strong core region, but I'd imagine lots of instability in many parts of the country.   The kibbutzim might provide the nucleus for a surviving Jewish polity in the lawless regions.  Benkarnell 11:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We could combine Mitro and Ben's. There can be a failed first attempt in the early 90s, but as the decade gets older there can be a successful establishment of a government who eventually joins the UL. The Kibutz-es do not contradict either ideas in my opinion, they can become the vread baskets of the region. Mr.Xeight 23:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Peru
Sorry to do this again but what is the deal with Peru and the SAC? On the map they are not a member of the SAC, but on the SAC article they are. On the World Country Profiles Peru is listed as a member of the SAC and is also listed as not a member of the SAC. Mitro 15:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can;'t say much about it specifically, but what if Peru split in two? Benkarnell 11:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Bermuda
I created this country and was wondering if it's all right? I've been following this TL for a while and I really like it, I just noticed no one made anything for Bermuda so I took my chance. Here's the page. --Gamb1993 10:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I do like it, and it makes complete sense to make Bermuda a Kingdom - but am wary of the King and Queen. I'm starting to worry that we're getting close to a world where every British royal survived and headed for a different country.   Could there have been anyone locally to assume the throne?  Or a relatively obscure relative already in the area?   solved the monarch problem quite well without importing anyone from Holland.  Benkarnell 11:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did look into having say a member of the royal family who'd moved to Bermuda beforehand; that didn't work. Then I looked for any locals who are famous but didn't find any appropriate ones (A rock singer and 'Miss World'.) So, grudgingly, I made Sophie his wife as in OTL.

Ιαπωνία
The issue of Japan has recently been an issue for me. All the page has is a little blurb about an evacuation to Ezo and "return to Samurai virtues" and a map of places where Japan was bombed that has a very grammatically incorrect statement. I'd love to make a purely self-sufficient, isolationist Japan that decried technology and returned to the Age of the Samurai technology that ANZC has only recently made contact with. As for Oakinawa, they'd most likely be returned to Stone Age technology, if any survivors even survived. Mr.Xeight 00:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Contributions
how much contribution do we have to do to be added to the Contributors section on this page? I'd like to help, probably in the region of Canada. DarthEinstein 01:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

2009 real data of the real world
a copy paste of

Angola 1,246,700 12,799,293 10.3 Luanda Cameroon 475,440 18,879,301 39.7 Yaoundé Central African Republic 622,984 4,511,488 7.2 Bangui Chad 1,284,000 10,329,208 8.0 N'Djamena Congo 342,000 4,012,809 11.7 Brazzaville Democratic Republic of the Congo 2,345,410 68,692,542[69] 29.2 Kinshasa Equatorial Guinea 28,051 633,441[69] 22.6 Malabo Gabon 267,667 1,514,993[69] 5.6 Libreville São Tomé and Príncipe 1,001 212,679[69] 212.4 São Tomé Northern Africa: 8,533,021 211,087,622 24.7 Algeria 2,381,740 34,178,188[69] 14.3 Algiers Egypt[70] 1,001,450 83,082,869[69] total, Asia 1.4m 82.9 Cairo Libya 1,759,540 6,310,434[69] 3.6 Tripoli Morocco 446,550 34,859,364[69] 78.0 Rabat Sudan 2,505,810 41,087,825[69] 16.4 Khartoum Tunisia 163,610 10,486,339[69] 64.1 Tunis Western Sahara[71] 266,000 405,210[69] 1.5 El Aaiún Spanish and Portuguese territories in Northern Africa: Canary Islands (Spain)[72] 7,492 1,694,477(2001) 226.2 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Santa Cruz de Tenerife Ceuta (Spain)[73] 20 71,505(2001) 3,575.2 — Madeira Islands (Portugal)[74] 797 245,000(2001) 307.4 Funchal Melilla (Spain)[75] 12 66,411(2001) 5,534.2 — Southern Africa: 2,693,418 56,406,762 20.9 Botswana 600,370 1,990,876[69] 3.3 Gaborone Lesotho 30,355 2,130,819[69] 70.2 Maseru Namibia 825,418 2,108,665[69] 2.6 Windhoek South Africa 1,219,912 49,052,489[69] 40.2 Bloemfontein, Cape Town, Pretoria[76] Swaziland 17,363 1,123,913[69] 64.7 Mbabane Western Africa: 6,144,013 296,186,492 48.2 Benin 112,620 8,791,832[69] 78.0 Porto-Novo Burkina Faso 274,200 15,746,232[69] 57.4 Ouagadougou Cape Verde 4,033 429,474[69] 107.3 Praia Côte d'Ivoire 322,460 20,617,068[69] 63.9 Abidjan,[77] Yamoussoukro Gambia 11,300 1,782,893[69] 157.7 Banjul Ghana 239,460 23,832,495[69] 99.5 Accra Guinea 245,857 10,057,975[69] 40.9 Conakry Guinea-Bissau 36,120 1,533,964[69] 42.5 Bissau Liberia 111,370 3,441,790[69] 30.9 Monrovia Mali 1,240,000 12,666,987[69] 10.2 Bamako Mauritania 1,030,700 3,129,486[69] 3.0 Nouakchott Niger 1,267,000 15,306,252[69] 12.1 Niamey Nigeria 923,768 149,229,090[69] 161.5 Abuja Saint Helena (UK) 410 7,637[69] 14.4 Jamestown Senegal 196,190 13,711,597[69] 69.9 Dakar Sierra Leone 71,740 6,440,053[69] 89.9 Freetown Togo 56,785 6,019,877[69] 106.0 Lomé Africa Total 30,368,609 1,001,320,281 33.0
 * Eastern Africa: 6,384,904 316,053,651 49.5
 * Burundi 27,830 8,988,091[69] 322.9 Bujumbura
 * Comoros 2,170 752,438[69] 346.7 Moroni
 * Djibouti 23,000 516,055[69] 22.4 Djibouti
 * Eritrea 121,320 5,647,168[69] 46.5 Asmara
 * Ethiopia 1,127,127 85,237,338[69] 75.6 Addis Ababa
 * Kenya 582,650 39,002,772[69] 66.0 Nairobi
 * Madagascar 587,040 20,653,556[69] 35.1 Antananarivo
 * Malawi 118,480 14,268,711[69] 120.4 Lilongwe
 * Mauritius 2,040 1,284,264[69] 629.5 Port Louis
 * Mayotte (France) 374 223,765[69] 489.7 Mamoudzou
 * Mozambique 801,590 21,669,278[69] 27.0 Maputo
 * Réunion (France) 2,512 743,981(2002) 296.2 Saint-Denis
 * Rwanda 26,338 10,473,282[69] 397.6 Kigali
 * Seychelles 455 87,476[69] 192.2 Victoria
 * Somalia 637,657 9,832,017[69] 15.4 Mogadishu
 * Tanzania 945,087 41,048,532[69] 43.3 Dodoma
 * Uganda 236,040 32,369,558[69] 137.1 Kampala
 * Zambia 752,614 11,862,740[69] 15.7 Lusaka
 * Zimbabwe 390,580 11,392,629[69] 29.1 Harare
 * Middle Africa: 6,613,253 121,585,754 18.4

Now yours ideas and opinions to this TL
and here i question why we must forget all that countries with arround 900.000.000 peoples and change to the New Britain Africa world? or a recolonized Egypt? what later a new United States of America with capital in Monrovia?... maybe, just kidding--Fero 01:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think almost every nation founded before 1983 in this 2 list List of sovereign states by formation date and United Nations member states with date of membershit and not nuked must be up in this timeline, except the one what you/we/us have a hard reazon to not stand up--Fero 02:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

POR QUE TU NO ENTIENDES??? DESPUES DE 1983 AFRICA NO TIENE DINERO DESDE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS O UNION SOVIETICA. MISMO, AFRICA ES EN PELIGRO. PAISES NEUEVES SON NACEN. LOS INGLESES TOMAN SUDAFRICA PORQUE EL "DOOMSDAY" HACE PELIGRO, MUY, MUY PELIGRO. MISMO LOS INGLESES Y LOS AFRICANOS VIVEN EN PAZ.

ENTIENDES?

Por favor, no toma ofensa pero yo odio su muy malo ingles. Por los consumidores de la "Althistory Wiki" por favor aprende mejor ingles. Es cortesía de común. Gracias, Mr.Xeight 03:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Um...translation? This is the English althist wiki.  :-) Mitro 03:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to help Fero understand. Basically I go on a rant telling him with Africa receiving no aid from the US or USSR, chaos ensumes and the continent sees massive scale war like nothing before. The British rise up in South Africa (don't know how to say "southern" in Spanish") and eventually make peace with the Africans. Then I go on to apologize to him saying that I hate his bad English and that as common courtesy to the users around here he learn as such.

I hate referring to people in the third person like that but I have no choice here. Mr.Xeight 03:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm. My Spanish skills are very small, just about limited to ordering coffee (Ugly American that I am)... but something tells me that was a less-than-polite comment.
 * Obviously there are differences over certain parts of this TL right now. Fero's been concerned for a while that there's been a lack of attention to Africa.  I haven't been concerned - it's really a function of what people have shown up and where their interests lie.  He was also troubled by a neo-neo-imperialism that had Europeans re-conquering bits of the Third World.  I also think that's been a bit exaggerated; the discussion of the UL occupying Palestine, for example, was all about the legitiamte fear of renegade nukes.  But I think I share his concern for a growning Anglophilia that has pockets of Great Britain prospering in highly unexpected corners of the globe... in general, I'd expect Western culture to be greatly weakened in this TL, not the reverse.  Benkarnell 04:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you are right, I did intend for that to be an angry letter. There are no insults because the don't teach you those in spanish 1. Ben I do think you're right about the re-emerging Anglosphere. Mitro got rid of Manchester and I suggested instead of a real British royal ruling Bermuda a native islander seizes power instead. So besides Rhodesia and those two, what was the 4th nation that's headed by British Royalty? Mr.Xeight 14:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Fundamentalism and Radical Islamism
I think the raise of radical ideologies, most prominently religion-based, would be a natural result of the Doomsday. Liberalism is cool for hedonist societies that have achieved high standards of living, but the age of troubles calls for fundamentalism, an ideology that would force people to forget about their personal needs and to work for the society's survival.

According to the "Nuked Map" the Arabian World hardly suffered from the Doomsday event. The pro-Western and pro-Soviet moderate regimes of the continent most likely fell due to lack of external support, or evolved into something more appropriate for the new conditions. Many Taliban-like regimes would appear. In fact they would be very adequate for the new age: they are self-sufficient, don't depend on resources and technology as much as "normal" society does, they unite and organize the people by means of strong ideology, and hardly require anything else.

Not only Islam, but Christianity, and new Post-Apocalyptic religion-like ideologies could be a basis for such societies.

I believe the radical conservatism would be more influential in the democratic nations too.

Simplified geography of the Doomsday World as I see it:


 * Northern Dead (or Survivalist) Belt
 * Equatorial Fundamentalist Belt
 * Southern Liberal Belt

— Hellerick 10:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I like it. Somebody just barely started writing on the history of Iran and Iraq, before they lost interest and left it unfinished.  Pakistan seems to be Islamist.
 * In 1983, Afghanistan was under Soviet occupation, and a lot of mujahideen types were running around, but they did not yet have much US support. It would be interesting to track the development of Islamism in TTL without the United States.  Afghanistan itself could have a very interesting post-DD history, with Soviet troops as a significant military force, alongside international Islamists and, of course, the tribes, which presumably would comprise much of the society that remains.
 * The history of Palestine/Israel has barely been touched upon, but there's talk of rogue nukes, Greco-Turkish involvement, and now, radicalizing Palestinians and presumably a more radical form of Zionism.
 * I've returned to Costa Rica a little bit last night and was actually exploring the idea of radicalized Catholicism as a significant force. That could be a very interesting twist in Central America and perhaps Cuba - the "fundamentalist belt" as it exists in the Western Hemisphere.  Benkarnell 14:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've written about the UL backing the Assyrians (who are mainly Christians) who would no doubt come in conflict with Islamic Fundamentalists. I've also stressed in the past that the UL has taken up a crusade against Islamic Fundamentalism and Communism so as it can gain more colonies mandates. It could take the place of the US (albeit a more sinister one) Mr.Xeight 15:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about Israel too. I don't think it would last long without US help. I guess there should be a very dramatic story about the fall of Israel (with much nuking). Well, the Jews can try to re-create Israel in 2000 years, right? I mean they can wait very well. Maybe they should flee to Cyprus or something?
 * Struggle won't help Israel. On the other hand... If it wants to survive, it should not fight Arabs, it should become their leader. I dunno, what about something like Abrahamic Peace? Like, Jews recognize Mohamed as the God's messenger, and Arabs recognize Israel as God-chosen people. And then Jerusalem becomes the center of a new Holy Empire.
 * I would rather believe into Israeli-Arabic union, than into sudden Greek-Turkish friendship. Honestly this UL does not look credible.— Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 16:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

How so? Do you really think the Arab terrorists of Palestine who believe their sole purpose in the world is to rid it of Jews and Europe, who do not believe that the Holocaust ever happened, who regularly terrorize the streets of Bethlehem and all of Israel would recognize the Jews and not the ARABS as God's chosen people? Likewise, the Jews who have suffered so much at the hands of the Arabs, who regularly have their streets bombed and innocents shot, whose darkest time is laughed at by Arab terrorists, who vowed to fight Arab terrorism would recognize a man that has had no sort of place in Judaism to be God's Messenger? Would you like to have Islam and Judaism make a syncrete religion as well that eventually has more followers than its parent religion?


 * Well, then Jews are doomed. — Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 17:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Greeks and Turks woring might be surprising, but at least in the 20th century have shown the rise of secularism in these two nations and they have worked together in our world such as in the instance where Greece backed Turkey's bid into the EU and Kemal Atatürk believed in not hating people because of past events and making alliances when you have to. Mr.Xeight 16:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would rather believe into fighting for resources and genocidal massacres. The only reason why Turks and Greeks don't fight just now is because the United States and the European Union would frown at such naughty behavior. — Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 17:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Meh. The Greeks and Turks had spent centuries hating each other, yes. But they were both NATO members and were therefore (on paper, at least) strong allies as of 1983. It's also worth noting that both countries were targets on Doomsday and were therefore littlem ore than rump states. Not totally impossible that in such a situation the leaders would see the wisdom in sticking together with old allies.
 * Israel and the PLO, on the other hand, were virtually at war, as MrX8 says. There was no talk of road maps or two state solutions in 1983 - the Palestinians were more or less a people without a nation (although progress was being made).  I think MrX8 is exaggerating the degree of terrorism at the time - the First Intifada wouldn't begin until the 80s - but the fact was, conflict was definitely brewing.  Much less likelihood for an accord than in the Aegean. IMO.  Benkarnell 17:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

OTL's Israel is not a self-sufficient country, it's fed by the United States and the Jewish diaspora. No civilized country can survive a perpetual war on its own. — Hellerick 17:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)