Talk:North American Union (1983: Doomsday)

Archive 1

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

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


 * I based this map on Mitro's earlier ons, so he will have to comment on that. 207.63.140.254 (BK)
 * Silly me, I didn't come here before changing the map! Anyway, I corrected the part of the map that took in Dodge City, and made sure it the boundaries went over to Scotts Bluff -- they do. I was wondering a little about the borders of Kootenai and Lincoln myself. I wasn't sure if this paint.net map (I use Microsoft Paint, myself) was accurate when I read that the pan-handle became "Lincoln" though. I decided to go with a thin sliver composed of border towns for now. On a related map I haven't posted as yet, I gave Kootenai the mountains of Montana.SouthWriter 00:25, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

The rough map did not quite get all of the panhandle of Idaho, splitting it in two. However, since the capital of the new state of Lincoln is in Kootenai county, the whole panhandle must have been intended. I haven't fixed this early "blue on gray" version, but my updated map of recognized formerly American states is just about complete. It is based on the latest reports available of all known former US states. SouthWriter 19:29, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I used the capitals suggest be another user (you can see it if you scroll down). I did not actually check if the towns mathced with the borders of the map, in hindsight a bad idea.  Mitro 23:33, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

Recent Edits
Well it took several months but I finally finished the history of the NAU. Please comment on them. Mitro 04:15, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * My initial thoughts are you did a good job. I enjoyed reading your history; I had wondered how the NAU had developed.--BrianD 04:23, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Flag

 * I'm thinking of changing the flags of the NAU and the US. Thoughts?  Mitro 04:29, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Between the NAU, San Juan, Samoa, Superior, and now Micronesia, we do have a lot of plain blue flags with stars on them. I wouldn't mind a change.  What would you do with the USA flag?  Just decrease the stars?  Benkarnell 05:15, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * The flag I have now for the NAU was found on the internet and emphasizes the OTL NAU proposal of the US, Canada and Mexico. I would rather have something that is slightly more original.  As for the US, yes maybe having less stars would be better.

How about a flag that emphasizes red and white - colors that the TTL U.S. and Canadian flags have in common - along with the blue of the US flag and the colors of the Lakotah flag?--BrianD 05:38, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * How good are you making flags? Mitro 17:58, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Poorly, I'm afraid. I don't know how to make them off the internet and don't have the sense of design necessary for a quality flag.--BrianD 19:04, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * flag of Canamerica sound good to this, i think, look--Fero 18:05, November 21, 2009 (UTC)


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

How about an American flag with a white maple leaf in the blue canton. It symbolizes that while the Canadians are a vital part of the nation, the Americans are the lagest, and therefore more powerfull portion of the country. --Yankovic270 19:01, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Lakotah will need to be represented as well. --BrianD 19:04, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

at last thats settelded the history and population of the NAU.--HAD 19:21, November 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd personally rather not have any more Frankenflags (flags stitched together from the corpses of other flags) - we already have far too many of them, IMO, and they seldom look good. (Yes, I know, I'm guilty of it myself, so forgive me if this reeks of hypocracy.)  There are some exceptions - the UK has a wonderful frankenflag, and Costa Rica uses one that's not bad. But in general, either the aesthetics or the symbolism will be messed up somehow.  It's far more interesting IMO to find a new symbol for this three-way union.  Three stars was OK, but even that had too much of a "USA" feel.  Three mountains?  Three trees?  Three rings?  `I agree for red & white, though, since all three members share those colors.  Lakotah just uses a different shade of red.  Benkarnell 21:10, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes "frankenflags" are a good way to symbolize the joining of two or more nations. We can tweak the second "frankenflag". Make the Maple Leaf white to match the stars, and have it surrounded by three stars. Also make the red stripes the Lakota shade of red. --Yankovic270 21:20, November 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be afraid that such a flag, if seen from far off... or flapping wildly in the wind... or hanging limply from an indorr staff... would look like a slightly miscolored American flag. I think the NAU is trying to create a whole new "North American" identity, and for that a totally new fag might be best. Benkarnell 01:27, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

personally, i think the Canada esque flag looks good. i think replacing the white stripes with blue ones would be a good idea.--HAD 13:09, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

does anyone like this flag I have kept the red Maple leaf and i added a blue cross that ben suggested --Owen1983 13:57, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

the blue cross is a bad idea. some people might take offense at that. --HAD 16:01, November 22, 2009 (UTC)



o have completely redone the flage

An idea from me. Red is the earth, blue the sky, the three peaks the three member nations. [edit] THe color scheme is meant to suggest the colors of Canada, the USA, and the Lakota. And I understand that the topography in the NAU is mostly prairie, but there are some mountains in each of the nations: officially, the peaks could represent the American Rockies, the Canadian Rockies, and the Black Hills. Benkarnell 20:13, November 22, 2009 (UTC)


 * A thought on the original flag: I can't find any evidence of it outside the Wikimedia Commons, so I suspect it was just the work of a speculative vexilologist / future historian at that site having a little fun. The position of the stars makes me think it was a copy-paste job from the Tennessee flag - that's how I had assumed you made it, Mitro, until you mentioned that you had found it somewhere else.  Benkarnell 03:47, November 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * I like your flag Ben, I think it would be a good compromise for the three nations. Mitro 05:53, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

i like the "three peaks"" flag. --HAD 13:37, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

I said this on the main talk page, but I suppose I should mention here too that I like the peaks flag. --DarthEinstein 16:57, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

its a great flag ben --Owen1983 17:56, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Native Americans / First Nations
What effect did the Lakotah War and Lakotah's joining the NAU have on Native Americans within the USA and Canada? There are plenty of them in this region. I know the Crow have a huge reservation in Montana, and there are others. Was there anti-Indian violence during the war? When Lakotah joined, was there talk of, say, a State of Crow carved out of Montana? [edit] Wait, I just realized that "Absaroka" means "Crow Tribe". So is that mostly a Crow Tribe state? Benkarnell 16:43, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * Good question. I did not actually consider the other Native Americans when working on the NAU.  Some of these tribes might be nations in their own right.  Thoughts anyone?  As for Absaroka, no I never meant for that to be a NA state.  It is a named for a proposed US state in the region and I borrowed it for this article.  Mitro 18:21, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

State Capitals
How about these for state capitals?

Montana 	-   	Billings, Kootenai 	-	Missoula, Absaroka 	- 	Sheridan, Wyoming	       -	Casper, Nebraska	-	Scottsbluff, Kansas 	-	Dodge City, Idaho 	       -	Montpelier, Lincoln 	-	Coeur d'Alene, Colorado 	-	Fort Collins

I noticed that Lincoln is right alongside the border with former Washington state, and that the Republic of Victoria is flexing its muscles in Washington. Could get interesting.
 * Thanks for the ideas on the state capitols, I have been integrating them into Provisional United States (1983: Doomsday). As for tensions between Victoria and the NAU, I really don't forsee any conflict in the near future.  Victoria is limited to the northwest corner of the former state and it would take decades for them to reach the eastern border.  Furthermore Spokane is in the way (see  for more info on this state).  I think its more likely that the NAU would see conflict with this state before it has to worry about sharing a border with Victoria.  Mitro 04:19, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

NAU Membership
some states seem to want the join the NAU as independents, but others, in particular those in the south want to jion as part of the PUS. is this workable? --HAD 11:56, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

also, would the flag have to be changed? then again, the EU Flag has nothing to do with the number of member nations. --HAD 12:03, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

to answer your question HAD yes becuse the if they couldnt defend themselves they would stick together and form a defence force this would have great economic benafits as well Owen1983 14:38, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Which states want to join the PUS? My understanding is that PUS is an organization proposed by a political party from Superior, and it hasn't gotten off the ground. Also, the nations in the southern U.S. either see themselves as still part of the United States or as independent entities. Any interest in the U.S. provisional government comes from questions regarding its status as the rightful successor to the U.S. government. BrianD 15:52, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

the PUS i am refering to is the NAU member state. if we were to regard as the rightfull sucessor to the old USA, some nations like the piedmont republic or maybe Blueridge. --HAD 15:55, February 2, 2010 (UTC)--HAD 15:55, February 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Duh :) You're on the right track; there are people within the southern nation-states, including Texas and Hattiesburg, who would like to join the PUS or reform the United States in some other manner. None of the leaders of these states have publicly stated they wish to help reform the USA, but who knows what might happen in the next few years? BrianD 16:00, February 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly I don't think many states would want to join PUSA. Consider the fact that the leaders/parties/factions/families in power have controlled their survivor states for over two decades. They have established their own institutions and identities, and more importantly they like being big fish in a little pond. To join the PUSA they would have to be "demoted" to roles in a state government and follow the rules of the PUSA government. Now the smaller survivor states might be interested in this. Most are probably surviving only by the skin of their teeth, but the larger states like Provisional Canada (which turned down statehood in PUSA) and Utah (which has become incredibly influenced by the Mormon religion) would see the NAU as the better option. In that organization they have the opportunity to preserve their independence and identity, while getting the benefits of free trade, military aide and other benefits from being a part of an economic/political union. Maybe decades down the line people will call for the NAU to the be the NAF, but right now the loose structure is more preferable.
 * Right now I think the NAU will remain a western North American institution. States like Superior or Virginia don't hold much interest to the NAU, and they have their own organizations anyway (like the League of American States and the Dixie Alliance). However I wouldn't be surprised if the NAU does not strech their borders west to the Pacific and south to the Rio Grande. Mitro 16:04, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

yeah. the MSP, the Texas's, Utah, Dinetah, Broken Bow, all those lot. such a nation would be pretty powerful, wouldn't it? --HAD 16:08, February 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll echo Mitro here and advise caution. If I've learned one thing following politics, it's that people/nations very often will not do something even if it is in their best interest. Joining the NAU (much less the Provisional USA!) would be a difficult transition that would take a long time to accomplish. On paper it would look great - creating a powerful new country or alliance out of these tiny statelets that can't do a whole lot on their own. But local and individual conflicts often get in the way even of obvious joint efforts like this one. Plenty of federations and alliances throughout history have failed to get off the ground - Central America, the United Arab Republic, even the West Indies Federation that we revived in this TL, etc. The EU is another one to look at: it's basuically good for Europe as a whole, but plenty of individual nations perceive that it may not benefit them... so the EU has developed, but very very slowly over 50 years. And look at Germany: local rulers fiercely guarded their own rights and powers, so unification took centuries to accomplish. Some states have resentments against each other; others might resent the union's inclusion of Canada (remember, the "North American Union" takes its name from a conspiracy theory in OTL that believes US leaders are conspiring to merge with Canada!); others might resent the attitudes of the original governments ("If you're going to join, you have to do things our way"). And on the other side of it, there are some states that the NAU would be wary of merging with. The MSP essentially exists because it's propped up by Australia and South America - there are plenty of people who might not want to get entangled in all that. And Utah and Dinetah - "they practice such odd religions and speak such odd languages - Lakotah is quite enough, thank you very much" might be some people's attitude. ("And don't get me started on those crazies down in Lincoln!") So (sorry for the long-windedness), expansion will likely happen (look at the EU), but it will be slow and difficult and fraught with conflict and arguments. At least, I hope it will - it's so much more interesting to write about that way ;-). 207.177.213.142 18:39, February 2, 2010 (UTC) (Benkarnell)
 * okay ben. wasn't actually thinging of editing things. just throwing the idea out there. HAD 19:24, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don;t want to be discouraging, either. Maybe the NAU can become a political barometer of sorts, like the EU is *here* - "Union-skeptics" and "Union-philes" are two distinct camps within a lot of the American coutnries. I know some interesting discussions are already happening. I just know how fast people like to make things move around here, so I want to avoid pushing things through at an unrealistic pace. 207.177.213.142 (Ben again)

Texas could join in some political union, especially as the two Texases unified and grew (albeit with much help from Mexico and LoN, at least initially). The southern states probably have heard of the PUSA and think of it as some sort of continuation of the preDD US government; they're also unaware of how different the PUSA really is from what they think of America as being. This doesn't preclude the southern states from establishing formal relations with the western states, but a political union probably isn't in the cards. They will have to work through the inevitable calls from residents who want to join them in order to reform the US, and through any issues caused/raised by the CRUSA. BrianD 21:01, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Due to its territory dispute with the Lakotans, I heavily doubt that the Assiniboians would be receptive to becoming part of the NAU. That, and their fiercely independant citizenry would balk at the idea of anyone telling them what to do. They might consider better relations with the NAU as a whole, but they would definitely ignore the Lakotans. I am sure, because I know their mentality. I, after all created the nation to begin with.

Yankovic270 00:56, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

about the difference between the PUSA and the old USA? how different are tehy. they have the same constitutuions, the same structure. just differnt sizes. or are you speaking in cultre terms?--HAD 14:45, February 3, 2010 (UTC)