Talk:Japan (1983: Doomsday)

That all we got on Japan? I'd be willing to give up the successful UL for awhile to take the reins of Japan, though the Israel debate may come first. Mr.Xeight 00:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I should think that Kyoto, being the former capital would revive as the capital instead of the backwater of Sapporo, at least eventually. Louisiannan 18:05, September 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, especially being the old imperial capital. With Japan reviving the old imperial ways, Kyoto would be the logical capital. Perhaps Sapporo could be a temporary seat of government until unrest has died down.--Oerwinde 00:02, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

New Caretaker
Alright, well, I've been told that Japan has no caretaker and I've been encouraged to try my hand at it. With that said, here are my thoughts on Japan:

Very true. The strikes on the northern Ryukyuan islands would have effectively obliterated the American bases and a wide majority of the population. Even if they don't become independent, though, I have to stress that it's unrealistic for the Ryukyuan islands to be merely reabsorbed into Japan. Either the survivors would band together, spurred on by an even greater sense of nationalism (Japan has failed them, after all), or they would have been simply destroyed, unable to sustain a working population due to irradiation and fallout.

On the whole, as well, I think Japan is extremely optimistic. It assumes that, despite the destruction of government and most of Imperial family, things in government ran particularly smoothly. First, one has to raise the question that, if September 19th, 1983 was a day like any other, with no forewarning prior to that date, why so much of the government survived. One would imagine that, like any other day, the Imperial Family would be at the Imperial Palace in Tokyo, while much of the Diet would also be meeting in the capital at the same time. A cluster of three nuclear weapons is reported, in the page, to have struck the Tokyo region. This would have obliterated the seat of government and the residence of the Imperial Family. It's far more prudent to assume that the government structure collapsed. The only surviving members of the Imperial Family would be those who could have been out of the Palace and away from Tokyo at the time. It is unlikely that no more than one or two members would have been spared a nasty nuclear end. The same goes for the national government. It is likely the Prime Minister and all or the vast majority of the Diet were killed.

Furthermore, the article states that social collapse was prevented by the declaration of martial law. First, it's unfeasible that a destroyed government, issuing a simple declaration of martial law, would have the coherence, organization, and military force to back up such a totalitarian declaration right away. It's also highly questionable that people would simply accept the declaration and act as if nothing has happened, when in reality millions of citizens have been vaporized, the government and so-called 'Divine' imperial family have been destroyed, the most densely populated areas of industry and commerce have been turned to slag, and nuclear fallout and irradiation in varying degrees are spreading over the entire nation of Japan. Third, it's unclear how such a declaration reached every part of Japan quick enough to prevent a collapse of order if the EMPs from the ICBMs knocked out much of the communications system throughout Japan and a huge amount of the electric grid and industrial infrastructure were destroyed. Japan was not likely to have a reliable system of communications, nor the military or organizational force to simply spread that message to the whole country in a snap. A reunified Japan in a matter of a year or two is unrealistic. The emergence of independent, interim Japanese states is much more likely, especially with the fall of the Imperial Family.

Building on that, there seems to be a perception in the article that all of Japan could have quickly received the government's message, tidily restructured, and gone about their daily lives, and yet places like the Bonin Islands could have passed a decade in isolation, without receiving a single communication or being visited by a single naval expedition. If such a thing occurred at the Bonin Islands, it's more likely that all throughout Japan communities were suffering in complete isolation and struggling to survive on their own terms. How could it be, also, that the KGB suddenly detected the Japanese radio communications in the late 1990s, but never intercept them before that?

There's also a bizarre disparity in the politics of post-Doomsday Japan. Despite a reversion to traditional policies, which in Japan means militaristic isolationism, and the institution of the policy of the aged, archaic policy of Sakoku, Siberians, of all people, were allowed to establish an embassy. I find it incomprehensible that, after declaring Sakoku, Japan would simply allow Siberians, the people commonly held to be major players in the destruction of the world, to just up and establish an embassy. They then negotiated with the exceedingly Western ANZC, and even allowed Hawaii to make the Bonin islands Hawaiian. Under the intense nationalism and traditional influence of such things as Sakoku, Japan would have never allowed the islands to become Hawaiian. They would accept the resettlement of Japanese nationals, but following that they would most likely refuse to cede the territory.

All in all, to fit with the diplomatic actions Japan has taken, and to fit a much more realistic view of Doomsday, I think Japan needs a serious rework.

I'm going to get to work on that, if there are no objections. <3 Back Alley Hero 16:25, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Independent Hokkaido?
I think there is potential for Hokkaido to leave the "Empire" while it was disorganized by the death of most of the government. Forget that it is the least populated part of Japan, enough soldiers defect and the Island could have a healthy army in no time. --72.45.100.138 21:44, September 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * But why would Hokkaido want to secede? From what I understood there hasn't really been any sort of autonomy movement, *here* or *there*. I could see the government of Japan relocating to Hokkaido at least temporarily, but secession? I don't know that I would readily agree. Louisiannan 21:51, September 10, 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't like how such an important nation got stuck with this undernourished stub of an article. Its outrageous! I think that if Japan could weather the atomic weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it can weather Doomsday. --Yankovic270 19:36, October 2, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, once someone actually decides to work on it, then it won't be a stub. I was thinking about expanding it, but right now I'm busy. If you want to continue it, Yankovic, go ahead. --DarthEinstein 22:01, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

Ogasawara
I just wrote about Hawaii's intent to recolonize Ogasawara on the news page, but I'd really rather have a discussion about its feasability. How "open" is Japan currently? Would Hawaiians/Australians even know how to contact the Japanese government to ask permission to resettle the islands? It's highly unlikely that Hawaii would unilaterally annex the islands if Japan were known to still claim them. There's still a section open at Talk:1983: Doomsday, but so far nobody has said anything. Benkarnell 02:34, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

But what if it seems that the Japanese were too busy trying to recover from Doomsday to worry about the (now) unihabited islands. --Yankovic270 02:51, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly that is the case, but it is still polite to ask permission; at least, if you consider yourself part of the civilized world. Benkarnell 03:02, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Would they ask, though, given that the Japan page indicates considerable bias against American survivor states. This would extend to Hawaii, you'd think.--BrianD 05:05, October 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * It sounds somewhat that way. But Hawaii - and the ANZ - still would not want to provoke an actual conflict over something so minor as a few hundred colonists. I think it would be best if Hawaii & Japan had been discussing hte possibility for a year or so already. I can't imagine Japan objecting to the Ogasawarans returning home. And if up to now they've had no interest in re-occupying the islands, they might - might - also not object to Hawaiian sovreignty over the new colonies now... as long as it was done in a respectful way, not as a land grab. At any rate, I'm sure Japan would prefer Hawaii in the Bonins to the ANZC itself. Maybe there could be a provision that the ANZC armed forces can never use the islands as a base: only Hawaii's Militia, and then only as much as is needed to defend them against pirates and outlaws. Benkarnell 15:57, October 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * So how does that idea sound - Hawaii approached Japan to discuss resettlement, going only slightly over the heads of the ANZC. Japan informed the ANZ that it approved of Hawaiian settlements, and offered the deal that I discussed above. The agreement was made, say, in August 2009, and Hawaii's Congress just this month appropriated money to fund the colony. Benkarnell 04:37, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

New Emperor
Considering how Japan has had over 2 decades worth of "interregnum," who would most likely take the Chrysanthemum Throne? I'm not an expert on the dynasty, but it's likely that some dynastic member was away from Tokyo during Doomsday.--114.108.194.203 14:00, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Was Oxford destroyed? because if it wasen't the heir apparent for the Japanese throne Crown Prince Naruhito could have survived DD. He studied in England at Merton College in 1983-85. --Yankovic270 14:20, November 10, 2009 (UTC)


 * You'd need to ask Mjdoch, as he is more or less the caretaker for the British Isles in this timeline. I wouldn't think Oxford would've been directly hit, but obviously the region was abandoned at some point after DD. You would also have to come up with a plausible way for Naruhito to get out of Oxford, perhaps to Ireland, and have him plausibly survive radiation, lack of food and violence. Has it been established that any ships were able to escape the British Isles after DD?--BrianD 17:21, November 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, see . Mitro 17:27, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

If the King of Jordan could return to his home country so can the Crown Prince of Japan. --Yankovic270 17:31, November 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * That is irrelevant. All that matters is whether it is plausible that the person in question can do it. Mitro 17:38, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that that question would keep the throne empty in japan. It could be a Lord of the Rings Type situation, where the Japanese Government pays homage to a king who may or may not exist. Its a little theatrical, but after two decades, would they really feel that great of a need for a monarch who is entirely symbolic? The longer they wait, the less likely they are to replace the emperor.Desert viking 17:32, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

Contact
problem: at one point it is stated that the only contact with the outside world was "Korean and Soviet Hams", and in the late 90's the soviet's finally send an expedition to Japan and are suprized to find so much organization.

If their is Ham contact one way, there will be ham contact the other way, and Japan will know about the new USSR, and the USSR will know about Japan. Or we can take out the ham reference. I also think the contact date should be moved up, as japan is fairly close to one the civilized world. I'm not sure wether or not the article is being maintained. There is an anonomous user who has been doing stuff but has no user name, IP starts with 114 and is very active on asian pages. He seems to have adopted this page, so I'm going to ask "114asian" to sort this out. or I can do it, but he got here first....Desert viking 04:07, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

Nintendo
Since the headquarters of Nintendo is in Kyoto, and has been for 100 years, what would be the fate of one of the largest franchises in the world? Arstarpool 06:41, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Looking it up, the Famicom was released in July of 1983 and suffered from hardware issues resulting in a recall just before the holiday season. So as of Doomsday, the only famicoms available were defective enough to warrant a recall. After doomsday I'm pretty sure people weren't too worried about video games. Likely nintendo either went back to making playing cards and such, or folded completely.Oerwinde 08:07, July 7, 2010 (UTC)



Caretaker
May I ask who caretakes the article? Arstarpool 05:16, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask who is in charge of Japan at this moment? I would like to discuss the Ryukyu Islands. Back Alley Hero 01:56, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Changes
Alright, I'd like input on some of the changes I'd like to administer to Japan, or, at the very least, to have a place to detail the ideas. So here we are. The following are the major things, in my eyes, that I would like to put into place with this article.
 * As for the history of Doomsday itself, that seems reasonable. It could be fleshed out and detailed more deeply, but the base idea is fine. It is most likely, however, that more of the government and the Imperial Family would be killed in the initial strikes. As the Diet would hold session on the day of Doomsday like any other, it is likely that the entirety of the legislative and executive branches would be present in Tokyo when it was struck. In fact, perhaps the only member of the Japanese Imperial Family that would plausibly survive the strikes on Tokyo would be the Crown Prince Naruhito, who was studying abroad at the time of the nuclear exchange. However, being in Britain at the time, his survival is unlikely, and his immediate return to Japan is all but impossible. The only other members of the family I can imagine surviving the blast would perhaps be Prince Katsura or Prince Takemado, cousins of the Emperor, though I can imagine no reason either of them would be away from Tokyo. The Diet as well, would be destroyed, leaving only local governments in place, with no upper structure, just like in the United States. Given the number of bombs that hit the area, all sent from the nearby Soviet Union or even closer, from China, evacuation would not be likely for most of the government or the Imperial family, with almost no warning.
 * Given that almost all of the telecommunications across Japan would be knocked out by the ICBMs detonated on Japanese soil across the main island of Honshu, as well as the vast range of ICBMs that hit nearby China, it is impossible that the minimal remaining government would be able to spread a declaration of martial law to the entire island. Like in the United States, the vast majority of people would merely assume that the nuclear apocalypse had wiped out the world's leadership, including that of their own nation. In places like the Ryukyu Islands, especially, they would think the world had been destroyed. The collapse of the coherent nation of Japan is more or less inevitable following the strikes against it. There is simply no way a nation that had most of it's government killed, it's most populous cities destroyed, fallout spread over it's entire landmass, and its telecommunications and industries shattered, would be able to survive without fracturing and loss of control in several areas.
 * Even though Hokkaido suffered no nuclear strikes, I don't see the government relocating there. They would more likely go to Kyoto immediately. Kyoto served as the capital of Japan for many years and so would be ready-built to serve that role again. Seeing as it avoided direct nuclear destruction, it too would be safe. Japanese authorities would have no idea of knowing whether Kyoto or Sapporo is in more danger of fallout immediately after Doomsday, and Hokkaido would be a likely target due to it's wide region of agriculture and industry. It would make more sense to go to nearby Kyoto and reforming the capital there. More than that, it is very near Osaka, the second largest city in Japan, one which did not suffer a direct nuclear blast. For military, cultural, and technological reasons, Kyoto is a far superior choice than Sapporo, something that would have been obvious to the remaining power structure of Japan.
 * Japan, though isolationist, would not seal off the world from the world, and certainly not through the policy of Sakoku. Not only was it a policy enacted under the Shogunate that came to be recognized in Japan as barbaric and detrimental in the later half of the twentieth century, but it was primarily a response to European colonialism and an attempt by the Shogunate to maintain totalitarian control of Japan. A modern democratic government of Japan would never enact Sakoku, nor would the people of Japan accept it without revolting. To say that a modern Japanese government would enact Sakoku is like saying that a modern European government would put the Inquisition back into power. As a side-note to this, Japanese communications would have occurred as soon as possible. This is not to say the state of Japan would be well-broadcast, but they would have accepted contact with anyone they could. People tend to put aside their differences in crisis, at least until they can resolve into a state of reasonable stability.
 * Japan would not be able to control the entirety of the island immediately after Doomsday. Like any other government, Japan would only be able to maintain emergency control of a limited area around their government headquarters until communications resumed. Even then, they would be dealing with myriad of industrial, economic, agricultural, military, transportation, social, and energy issues that any place that suffered direct hits in doomsday would have to suffer. It would be a slow expansion and reclamation, like it would for any other nation. It is foolish to think that Japan would be any more unified than nations in similar struck places, like Europe. The Ryukyu Islands would be full of fallout and uncontrollable, as would much of the nation due to communication and survival issues.

These are the initial changes I have in mind for reestablishing the state of Japan. I don't intend to change it entirely, but as a scholar of Japanese history and culture, there are several assumptions and implausibilities in place that are completely out of character in regards to the Japanese government and people. Questions, comments, concerns? Back Alley Hero 17:45, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, I have to admit it doesn't fly with me that you adopt the article and just drastically change it...even if its not entirely. And weren't you going to originally just work on the Ryuku Islands?

Remember the possibility of evacuation- while all the Diet and Emperor, and other key leaders of the government may not be evacuated, some of them might be. There were no EMP's on Japan so its very possible that some could have escaped. Changing the flag and name, though, is the biggest offender. As I recall that is a flag from a certain part of Japan from the 19th century, I remember seeing it somewhere but I can't recall.

The part about relocating to Kyoto is very likely. The part about a nation fracturing just because they were hit by nukes is not. Israel was pounded with nukes and they survived, the same with Australia, and to a certain extent Canada. Arstar [talk] 01:28, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

In the future I think you should consult with everyone and then make the changes, not vice versa. Arstar [talk]


 * Here, let me try to give you a hand, since I wouldn't think you would read all umpteen policy pages that have grown up since this project started to grow. With dozens of people working at once, it's essential that we have a clear way to know what is "real" in the timeline.  That's why we have the principle of "canon" or "QSS" - "What is written, is written."  Basically this means that once something is accepted into the story of the world, then everyone else has to work around it.
 * In practice, minor details do get adjusted fairly often, especially if the original author is around to agree to their work being changed. But changing big things, such as the overall "feel" of a place or major story elements, creates problems bcause it interferes with other pages that reference this one.  I've said before that it "undermines the integrity of the timeline" because if the changes get out of control, the entire thing can collapse in a heap of inconsist facts.
 * So when you see something that seems illogical or inconsistent - like a Sakokuist Japan that allows Siberians to build an embassy and lets Hawaii settle Ogasawara - the challenge is to take that information and get it to harmonize without just deleting it. Maybe the Siberians call their post an "embassy", while Japan just calls it an "envoy's office" or something less important-sounding.  For Ogasawara, the Japanese government no doubt calculated that a tightly restricted, demilitarized Hawaiian settlement would be better than an Australia-New Zealand navy base; they could rationalize it by saying that Ogasawara isn't really part of Japan, anyway.
 * I had always pictured the new Japan as an imperfect attempt to tie the country together after the destruction of its center. Not a thriving happy democracy at any rate: in fact, I'm surprised to see Japan as a democracy at all.  That seems to go strongly against earlier QSS.
 * And yes, Arstar, that's the Ryukyu flag. Benkarnell 13:57, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Population a bit high?
Do you think that the population of 72,000,000 is a bit high? It's roughly the same population during WW2 and there was mass starvation then. Do you think a population of maybe 35,000,000 (level of 1870/80's) or maybe even lower might be better? particularly as Japans imports are few and far between and they'd have to grow all their food themselves?--Smoggy80 18:56, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

There are a couple nearby nations that could provide food imports such as Jiangsu. But you may be right, as they wouldn't have been able to provide them until the mid 90s I think. And with Japan isolationist until the 2000s...Oerwinde 19:21, January 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, the population is likely to high. I am going to change it to 35 mil and see what the reaction is. Mitro 19:34, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

Well, the population of Japan in 1983 was 119 million. Assuming that 100% of the inhabitants in the nuked cities were killed and everyone in the Ryukyu Islands died (which means this number is a little high), about 101 million people would have survived the direct strikes (18 million deaths).

Due to the slenderness of Japan, most of the radioactive fallout would have quickly moved away from Japan, so damage from that would be limited to the immediate areas of the strikes. Since there are no major rivers in Japan, there would be no major damage in the water supply either. So you could estimate that 5-10 million would have died from fallout.

Japan is able to produce some food natively, especially fish, though it imports alot. Starvation would set in, but would quickly be averted. Since the Japanese government was able to quickly reform and Japan itself is an internally stable nation, trade links with other nations, primarily in South America, Southeast Asia, and Oceania, would be quickly established in order to end the starvation. By 1985, Japan would no longer be starving, but it would be a much more restricted national diet. Up to another 3-7 million people probably would have died from the immediate food crisis.

So 72,000,000 is a more or less correct number, if not a little low. Since Japan would fair well, in comparison to other countries, during the first decade after Doomsday, immediate deaths would be minimal. After that first decade, there would be no reason for Japan to lose any more of its population since it would have established the trade it needed to survive. With these numbers, we must also assume Japan's birth rate remained low through much of the 1990s and 2000s, otherwise it would be higher.

Also, Japan's isolation wouldn't affect this. They are politically isolated, but that has nothing to do with their vital trade relation with other countries. OTL, Japan is one of the world's largest importers because of its total lack of native resources. Japan would remain a major importer post-Doomsday in order to survive. Caeruleus 21:55, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

Caer, you're wrong about a few things.

First, you forget the impact of refugees on the country. Japan has long been very urbanized, and the survivors of the strikes, and those in nearby areas, would mow down food stocks and survivors. Add in the population of the metro area of Tokyo to the three blasts in that area as well, doubling the initial blasts deaths.

Fallout would be much worse than you say as well. Air currents in the area of Japan are towards the north-northeast/northeast, which would mean much of Honshu would be covered in fallout. Their agricultural production - only possible at current levels with modern tech - would also plummet for several years as a result. Double the deaths there too.

And the Japan article itself says the exact opposite of what you just said. They did not open up to the outside world at all until the 2000's. This means no trade, no contact, nothing. Far, far, more people would have died from starvation.

32 million is a much more plausible population. If anything, it should be lower.

Lordganon 22:25, January 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll give you the refugees. The rest of the Tokyo metro area would only be affected by the direct blast if it was a multi-megaton bomb. The outer suburbs would probably survive regardless. As for the fallout, while you are correct on the wind patterns, only a substantial amount of fallout would come from the Nagasaki and Iwakuni would move across Japan. The rest of the targets are along the eastern Japanese coast and fallout from those blasts would move directly into the sea. So even then, fallout would be minimal. The Iwakuni nuke would be very small since it was attacking a military base, so fallout from there would be localized and fairly minimal. That leaves only the Nagasaki blast generating much fallout, and the Nagasaki nuke would be less than half a megaton since it would primarily be targeting the harbor and navy base.


 * Well, frankly, what is currently in the article is impossible. Even if we go with what you said and say that about 40 million people died from the immediate blasts and fallout, that leaves about 80 million survivors. If the government was able to successful able to reform by 1985, as the article says, they would have to open trade links with other nations in order to survive. Otherwise, they'd essentially be condemning half of their population to die since Japan would be unable to feed themselves. There is also no reason why Japan would be unable to do this since they would have many surviving ports, most of their merchant fleet, and most of their military intact. Plus, the nations of Southeast Asia, South America, and Oceania would be more than welcome to trade with Japan in order to replace the income they lost from the end of their trade with the West or Soviet Union. Caeruleus 22:49, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * You are assuming that everyone, no matter what, always make the right decisions. How often in history do we scoff at our ancestors for the bad decisions they made. Hindsight is 20/20 and often alternate history is made by authors using that hindsight to create a different world. Same thing here: just because they could have made a better decision does not mean they made it. Maybe the remaining officials were weak willed or else incompetent. Maybe they just could not fathom the catastrophe and decided the best thing to do was to close themselves off to the rest of the world (Japan would be the only nation in this ATL to be nuked twice). Everything you say above is possible, but sometimes it takes someone who has the will to get it together. Without a strong-willed leader, even the best option would fail against the growing chaos that followed Doomsday.
 * Besides, QSS and QAA protects this article. We work with what we got, not what we want. Ben thinks the ANZC is implausible, should we get rid of that? South doesn't think Bush would have left the Americas or disband the APA, should we get rid of that? The TL would lose its coherence if we changed everything an editor felt was impossible. Mitro 19:31, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between bad decisions and insanity. I merely assume leaders aren't completely insane or would be overthrown if they were. But QSS and QAA does protect the article as is. Nonetheless, something needs to be added to explain why the population dropped that dramatically, if it is going to be changed. Caeruleus 19:35, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Ahh! I knew I forgot to reply to something!

Three blasts in the Tokyo metro area, Caer. No need for a multiple megaton blast. Add in uncontrollable fires, and the area is a total write-off.

How could you get that fallout pattern from what I said? I did not say it went east, towards the ocean, at all - rather, look northeast, meaning northern Honshu gets clobbered with all of it before it gets to the ocean. If anything, Nagasaki is the one that effects mainland Japan the least.

As Mitro said for the rest, and Caer, you assume once again that people make smart decisions all the time. Guess what - they don't. And I would think that early on they could easily assume the world destroyed, by and large. And the 1985 reestablishment date you quote stills leaves more than a year for the population to starve - and they would have.

Explains everything too.

Lordganon 19:56, January 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * Even if they made a wrong decision, no government could make a decision that would condemn half of its population to death and survive. If nothing else, they'd be overthrown. Since Japan seems to have remained democratic, they would have just been voted out.


 * Even if you count the entire Tokyo metro area as destroyed, more than 60 million people would have survived the direct strikes. And since Japan's military and merchant fleet would have largely survived Doomsday intact, they would be able to quickly reestablish necessary trade within a matter of weeks. Radioactive fallout couldn't have killed 30 million people, so that leaves voluntary starvation as the only possible way the population could have dropped as low as you're proposing it goes.


 * Only the developed world was destroyed. The rest of the world was fine, relatively speaking. And since Japan isn't landlocked and has amble ports, no Japanese government would assume the world is destroyed and would easily be able to reconnect with it. Everyone knew that if a nuclear war broke out only the USA, Europe, China, and USSR would be majorly affected, so they would immediately turn to the developing world for assistance. Caeruleus 03:05, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

As Lordganon says it was a minimum of a year for the new government to take over, that leaves a long winter (which in northern Japan is pretty damn cold), the sewage systems probably would have failed quickly either due to the massive influx of refugees into cities or smaller rural towns, or damage from the attack. This would lead to diseases such as Dysentry and Cholera.

Plus you have the fact that 6-8 weeks with little or no food and your dead, even with, say 1500-2000 cals per person (just below average) you can still die of malnutrition in 15-20 weeks (less than 6 months) anyone who's been on a diet will tell you how fast the wieght can fall off you with that calorie intake. Children and the elderly are the most effected by food shortages (Japans population in 1980's was on average the oldest population on the planet at about 67 years old). So it is entirely plausable that there was a massive population reduction of nearly 50% (55 million ish) in the year after the attacks.--Smoggy80 20:01, January 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * The article says the new government was formed by 1984 (with no specific date) and martial law was immediately declared. Municipal governments would have survived intact and would continue to administrate the country do the absence of social collapse. It would have been less than 6 months for a new government to form.


 * The refugees would have been minimal. The targets were either small towns with minimal populations or large cities with highly concentrated populations which would have been entirely wiped out. Radioactive fallout wouldn't create many refugees because its safer and easier to deal with if you just stay put. Japanese municipal governments are also fairly competent. They would have at least been able to keep the major sewage systems running and would cooperate with neighboring municipalities.


 * The country didn't close its borders until 1985. So until then, Japanese municipal governments, followed by the national government once it was reformed, would focus much of their energy on securing food supplies, mostly from Southeast Asia and converted farm land. Since Japan's merchant fleet mostly survived, they would easily be able to acquire the necessary foodstuffs. Some would die of starvation and malnutrition would be a problem for 6-18 months, but it would still be manageable. So only about 10-15% of the population, about 8-12 million, at most would die from those problems. Also Smoggy, your number (55 million) still doesn't explain how it got down to 35 million by 2011. Caeruleus 20:18, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there's no mention of when democracy returned - only that martial law was declared. Which means no elections or nothing until the government decides otherwise. Military support - along with ensuring that military families get enough food to keep the support - prevents a revolt succeeding.

As seen in the rest of the world, the first priority of the military would be to ensure local order and survival, which means the rest of the world would be ignored. You make assumptions, Caer, that Japanese isolationism would not exist - and it only takes a quick look at their politics to know it still does. And just because they're able doesn't mean that they will.

And rely on the developing world? They'd have no idea as to what was left out there. Not that the starving developing world - worse here - could help them.

The article, in what is written, is somewhat contradictory. But the Sapporo diet does not seem to have gained authority over the entire country until sometime in 1984, leaving the winter of 1983 for starvation. And it would happen, no doubt. Municipal governments are all well and good, but how much does that do for the average person when the food runs low/out? Except in rural areas, with more food and a smaller population, it does them squat. And all that assumes that the government would have full authority by 1985, which is not plausible at all, either.

Refugees? People fleeing radiation, and searching for places with food. It happens, Caer, no matter how much you deny it or refuse to believe it. It may be better to stay put, but you cannot honestly say that the average person would do it, unless it has been droned into them for their entire lives - and even then many would not.

While the article says that they closed the borders in 1985, it also says before that that there had been no contact with the outside world before then. Not only that, why on earth would the governments send ships out, not knowing if there was anything to send them to, and use their oil/gas supplies up? Simply put, they wouldn't.

55 million in the first year (I'd call it 65 myself), and the remainder in the next couple of years as the old die from lack of help, food grows scarcer before it gets better, people die from fallout, deaths from refugees/bandits, and the slowdown in food production (if fertilized, rice can be harvested something like 4x a year - if not, halve production, especially in Japan, making stocks even worse) brought on by the situation.

Lordganon 09:02, January 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * You're failing to consider the well-documented temperament and experiences of the Japanese people, not to mention fundamental needs of their society. This includes their incredibly high level of social stability, strong attachment to government, and previous nuclear experiences. Also, the article expressly says there was no substantial social instability or revolts. As for the "able" versus the "will," the Japanese leadership isn't stupid. They know they have to do these things in order to survive, so they would obviously do them. Their leadership is educated, diverse, and competent. If this was some crackpot dictatorship, then they probably would do the wrong thing. This is the world's third largest economy and one of the most educated populations in the world. They're going to know what to do.


 * The rest of the world can't be ignored because they're necessary to Japan's survival. Japan is the world's fifth largest importer and fourth largest exporter. They need the world for both their national survival and economic prosperity. While post-Doomsday isolation would end their economic prosperity, they couldn't risk their national survival. And only the developed world would be destroyed. It would be obvious that the developing world, minus China, would have survived because they wouldn't have been nuked. For example, Brazil would obviously survive because no nation would have any reason to nuke it. While the popular perception may be that there's no one left, the educated elite, who lead in all levels of Japanese government, would realize that was false.


 * Municipal governments and the military would be competent enough to gather their surviving merchant fleets, coordinate between cities, and maximize as much agricultural production as possible. I'd expect that within 2-5 weeks small food imports would restart. Also remember, with the destruction of the rest of the developed world, many developing countries have no one to export their agriculture to, so there would be an amble supply of foodstuffs for Japan.


 * As for the refugees, I am probably slightly underestimating their numbers, but once again, you have to look to the temperament of the Japanese people and their many examples of similar behavior. After the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, you didn't see masses of refugees fleeing these cities. During WWII when Japanese cities were being firebombed into destruction, you didn't see many refugees either. In both situations, the people listened to the government and military and society remained stable. While Japanese society in 1983 was much less militarized than in 1945, much of this would still hold true.


 * As for the no contact thing...yeah, that just doesn't make sense. The Japanese aren't suicidal (at least en masse). That part needs to be reviewed imo.


 * Caeruleus 20:01, January 19, 2011 (UTC)

Sendai Earthquake
Just wondering if you will be adding anything about the Sendai Earthquake to your page? it's just that Japan will be the hardest hit by the Earthquake and following Tsunami.--Smoggy80 11:41, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

further, since Fukushima was not hit on Doomsday, what is the status of the Nuclear Power Plant there?

As it looked like no one was going to add anything, i've added a section on the Sendai earthquake or the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami as its known now, if anyone can think of anything else to add please do--Smoggy80 16:43, March 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * To what do you attribute the huge difference in death toll from TTL (275,000+) and OTL (12,000 - 30,000)? The disaster would be the same except perhaps for the total failure (Chernobly-style explosion) of one reactor. The description from observance, though, seems to indicate that it is the assumption that half the affected population would have perished in the quake and tsunamis. SouthWriter 17:18, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Way I figure it, given the damage it did to Japan otl, even with modern buildings and outside help, and with both of those quite lacking here, it would be far worse atl. Picture a much slower rescue time, diseases, and a food shortage. Lordganon 18:18, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, given all that, is this list of destroyed cities accurate to what were affected in OTL? And if so, can we say there is a lack of "modern buildings" in northern Japan? They have been dealing with earthquakes for centuries and had learned lessons by 1983 that would not allow a return to ancient structures after the restructuring of their society. Or would it? SouthWriter 18:46, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

By modern, I meant buildings designed, and features installed, since 1983, which would only partially exist. Maintenance would also suffer since DD, complicating even those things already there. As for the list, I can confirm that the Prefectures were indeed the ones most damaged by the waves, so the towns should be right. Lordganon 09:40, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

The death toll would be so large due to, a lack of well built, earthquake proof buildings, there would be no offical tsunami warning alarms like there was in OTL and lots of people in OTL escaped in cars, trucks and buses, which wouldn't exist due to the lack of fuel. Plus the majority of the towns hit had tsunami walls that had been built in the 90's (which wouldn't have been built in TTL) even then the walls were overtopped in OTL so the damage would've been far, far worse. --Smoggy80 15:49, April 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I am wondering why maintenance would suffer. The people are still proud of their land, so anything designed and built will be maintained.  As for the populations destroyed, what would the post DD populations be of these towns.  The overall population is listed in TTL as about 35,000,000 (compared to about 128,000,000 in OTL).  If the populations given in the article reflect a similar reduction of the population, then such a loss can probably be sustained in TTL.


 * I wonder about a lackof an official warning system, though. The concept is not new, and the earthquake was felt before the ensuing tsunami hit.  The Japanese people are very resourceful, so they would have known what to do even without a warning system.  Very few people escaped the tsunami in OTL via vehicles of any sort, for these very vehicles trapped hundreds as the tsunami came ashore in mid afternoon.  And so, I agree, thousands would die, perhaps more than in those towns and villages in OTL.  But I am just not sure the figures used are right.  The differences that made OTL "safer" probably not be as great as presented.  SouthWriter 19:07, April 6, 2011 (UTC)