Talk:1983: Doomsday

Before you start editing, please read the Editorial Guidelines.

Discussion Archives:

| Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8

Former Proposals:

| Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8 | Page 9

=GENERAL DISCUSSION= The following is for general discussion to improve the TL that does not involve article proposals Structured into rough sections for easier navigation.

Countries/Regions/Politics
Archives: Page 1 Page 2 Page 3

Monarchs page
As something of a monarchophile, I've been thinking about this page for a while. This isn't really a Proposal since it's all information that's from existing pages (QSS) or based directly on real life (QAA). Whenever a monarch in real life married or ascended to the throne after 1983, I left the consort and accession boxes blank: their predecessors' death may have happened at a different time under different circumstances, and it's likely they married someone different from OTL. Ialso left the Andorran prince-bishop's name blank, just because I want to make sure the info on the page is accurate: it says that the bishop from 1983 is still around today, even though he's dead in OTL. The only creative license I took was that I decided the Bermudan monarchs decided to name their Royal House after their peerage name (Dunrossil) rather than their familiy name (Morrison); I thought they might like to emphasize their noble credentials. Feel free to look over and fix! Benkarnell 06:22, February 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming that as the Duchy of Orleans seems to be a "dead" nation as far as editing goes you are ignoring it for the monarchs page?? Verence71 11:18, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I filled in what I could. It's still a canonical nation... isn't it? Benkarnell 13:23, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * The major problem I have with the Duchy of Orleans is that at the time of Doomsday, Duke Jacques wouldn't have been the Orleanist pretender. That would have been his father Henri whose heir would have been Jacques older brother, who is also called Henri. This second Henri is the current Orleanist pretender in OTL. Verence71 16:31, February 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * France had a very high casualty rate in the aftermath period, so I think it makes sense if that includes members of the Oreleans family. Benkarnell 18:28, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Iowa City, Iowa
There seems to be some contradictory information on this place in the TL. On the article it is listed as controlled by them, but the history of the survivor state is incomplete. Plus the maps made of the QCA seem to suggest that the nation does not strech that far. Also the mentions the town as well but lists it as an independent city. I am currently working on an article on post-Doomsday Iowa and I am trying to figure out what is mroe likely. Mitro 13:26, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * The Timeline mentions I.C. as an emerging city-state in the 1980s. I think that can easily be harmonized with the (incomplete) history of the QCA if you figure that I.C. was independent for a while and was later absorbed, peacefully or not, into the Alliance. North America's history would be much more realistic if we have more of this sort of emergence of new nations in fits and starts, rather than the picture of consistent unhampered peaceful growth that has emerged on some of our pages. Benkarnell 18:27, March 6, 2010 (UTC) I think joinig the Owen1983 00:05, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Graphics / Visualization /Cartography
Section Archives: Page 1

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

March Article of the Month
This month's article of the month is the. If you have the time, check this article out and see what you can do to improve it. Mitro 19:02, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1 • Page 2

Miscellaneous discussion
Archives: Page 1

Jackson, Tennessee
Are we to assume that Jackson was a lot smaller in 1983 and that the Gilmore of OTL was an outlying village that somehow was abandoned for the safety of a centralized population in that smaller town that has not grown in 26 years? Today, Gilmore is a community that shows up as surrounded by the city limits of Jackson. It seems to be of about at most 50 houses. Without historical records, I have to assume the growth records of Jackson to be about like those of the state. If that is so, the town would have a population in 1983 of around 45,700. After Doomsday, that would have swollen by around 400,000 as survivors from the Memphis area. Frankfort couldn't handle it, but it looks like somehow Jackson did. If anything, there must have been a grand expansion of the town (even assuming half of the new population, and some of its own, died). If even a new population of 200,000 in 1990 increased at 1% for 20 years, there would be a population of 240,000 there today in the ALT.

Yes, gentlemen, I have way too much time on my hands. If anyone wishes to further expand on this news item, I hope they do some research. I seem compelled to set this time line on the right path. I have articles of my own I need to develope. SouthWriter 19:49, February 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * I would ask that you, somewhere on the main talk page, develop your objections to each of the article you see here and detail the work that we will need to do in order to meet the standards that you apparently believe have yet to be met. I would also invite you to take up your concerns directly with the editors who oversee this wiki - specificially, Xi'Reney, Benkarnell and Mitro.


 * I will also say this, and I believe I would speak for the entire wiki: constructive criticism is fine. But I don't come here to get nitpicked. You also should understand that this is a wiki where decisions are ultimately made by consensus - which means that not only may your suggestions get heard and implemented, they may also get heard and rejected. BrianD 20:03, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the main talk page, and Jackson was introduced on the main news page. I took it up as a challenge because it was introduced without discussion as a new survivor state. And I always try to be constructive in my remarks. I don't wish to be "nit-picky," but I would think that the storylines should seek accuracy. That is what I have seen in all the discussions that I have followed. I would not be offended if my suggestions are rejected. In fact I have asked for suggestions toward the articles I have developed, but have received very little input. I never attempt to alter any article someone else has created past minor edits of spelling or an occasional word choice. I apologize for my attention to detail. It is probably the reason I do not get much fiction completed. The remark above about doing some research was not meant to be a slam against anyone's article. It was only to say that I will not be doing the research. :-(


 * SouthWriter 20:44, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I want to be charitable in my remarks, and I hope I have not come across as arrogant or uncharitable in any way. I picked Gilmore because I had the group traveling by foot along I-40, and also because while Gilmore is a suburb in OTL, it may or may not be the same in a world where transportation is either by foot or by horse. I probably screwed up by saying the former town of Gilmore...I will revise the item now.BrianD 19:39, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Whose "bright" idea was it to have the Jacksonians kick the oh-so-generous Virginians out of town? Whoever did it undoubtably doomed Jackson to a humiliating defeat and military occupation. But I have to thank you. In the years since the Virginian Republic reunited West Virginia they have not had the chance to really flex their military muscle. The incident gave Virginia the perfect reason to make an example of Jackson. The only outcome I see happening is Jackson being occupied and its government, specifically the mayor, facing a firing squad.

Yankovic270 19:13, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Mine :) Seriously, in the timeline, it's the rogue government that's held the city in a vice grip for the last 15 years or so. So much so that the people would definitely welcome Virginia and Kentucky as liberators...but Virginia and Kentucky might find themselves fighting an enemy that is just as determined to hold its ground and fight off the invaders (like the Taliban against the Soviets). There really are a lot of unknowns about Jackson TTL...I would propose it a rogue, isolationist state that is a lot more dangerous than it might seem to be. BrianD 19:39, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

I also wanted to create a scenario where Virginia would be able to look like the good guys, and give Yank an opportunity to show everyone how VIrginia isn't a crazed, rogue state itself...it really does want to help its neighbors. BrianD 19:44, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the contingent they evicted was to establish diplomatic contact and help the region's economic restoration. When they are kicked out they are seriously offended. They see that as an act of war, and want to subdue Jackson before they cause any more trouble in their restoration of the state of Tennessee. Besides the Virginians have done so much to try and improve their reputation, only for the League of Nations to rudely ignore their titanic efforts. Anyway, who is the leader of Jackson? I cannot see anyone named "Jerry Gist" at the head of a rogue government.

Yankovic270 19:58, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Yank, this is really showing a new, refined, Virginian Republic! Declaring war on a micro-nation just because they don't want you around?!! Well, they did take your weapons, but was there any evidence of corruption or danger of their invading other settlements in the area? I was meaning to comment on the co-operation of Virginia with little city-state Portland as the "rightful owner" of the rest of Tennessee. What about East Tennessee? That survivor state is never going to join with a Virginia that wants to "take over" land ruled for twenty-five years by otherwise peaceful folk. The League of nations is right, Virginia is still too much of a loose cannon. I propose, this calls for an alliance of the Appalacian bloc - East Tennessee, Blue Ridge, and Piedmont - to assure that the Dixie Alliance does not take over their peaceful states.


 * Brian, is there much evidence that their has been an "iron grip" on the people as to want deliverance? You mention that there might be a rogue government - but over how many people, and by what means? Being the receptor city for so many survivors from the Memphis metro area, I'd think there is quite a back story here. SouthWriter 21:02, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no issue per se with the Dixie Alliance, or with Yank or Zack (or South, for that matter). That's not just my countries speaking, it's my personal opinion. East Tennessee and Blue Ridge would prefer that everyone get along; but it might be good at some point for the four of us to sit down and figure out the next few years of the southeast/mid-south region. BrianD 21:38, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * South, there is a difference between not wanting someone around and disarming them and forcing them out at gunpoint without a justifiable reason. --GOPZACK 21:17, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Who's Jerry Gist? I must've missed the memo on his rulership. Jackson is one of those states that very little is known about...their motivation could be anything. It's also meant to represent the city state that is secretive, isolationist and run by people who have their own motivations for keeping to themselves. The best analogy TTL would be the citystates in the Municipal States of the Pacific run by bikers and warlords. Remember, this is a post-nuclear war world we're developing, and unfortunately not every citystate developed as well as Piedmont, Vermont or Virginia did. South, the information I've dropped is not officially in canon, but is something I can do as the de facto creator of the region - just as you can fill in details on Piedmont on the talk page that haven't yet been put up on the page proper. I figured it might be best to have a bit of mystery about the city for now, and to fill in the details as we go along - just as the people in TTL would discover them. And, I think that the city being a destination for survivors from Memphis has little or no bearing on how the citystate developed. BrianD 21:31, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Jerry Gist is the OTL Mayor of Jackson.


 * Yankovic270 21:41, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

I doubt Gist would have any leadership role in TTL Jackson. Assuming his counterpart survived Doomsday, he's probably in a non-government role...the guys I have in mind for controlling the town are like the warlords and bikers that ruled some of the towns in the MSP. BrianD 21:47, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Who knows, maybe Gist was "at heart" a warlord! However, he took over after two-term mayor Charles Farmer in 2007. I submit that this man might more likely serve as the model for the present leadership. He served as mayor for two terms in a new system that had underwent a recent change due to charges of disenfranchisement of the large African-American minority. With a population at 55 - 42, the racial tension must have been great -- at any one election a large turn out of the black vote could swing things if the majority is not diligent.


 * Another "fact" that might be a point of departure, leading to a dictator. The primary elections in May 2003 were disrupted by some mighty powerful tornadoes. In OTL the elections were just postponed. In TTL, this could have been the opportunity to switch to martial law that is still in effect. Farmer, or someone else, would take over, bringing order much like the generals did in Virginia and Kentucky. If there are warlords, it is probably a population ruled by rival gangs - along more or less racial lines. What passes as "government" might just be there to give the semblance of order.SouthWriter 23:23, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

i must admit that wars have begun over less. Belgium won its indepence via a war due to an opera after all. but a better reason for war rather then giving some heavily armed diplomatic envoys the boot. In OTL terms, Virginia might be considered to be over-reacting.Ramdominsanity 20:25, March 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI: the envoys were all military, not diplomats. Yank can clarify re: Virginia, but in my view all Virginia/Portland exploration is led by their respective military wings. BrianD 18:09, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Chile earthquake
Someone posted an item about today's OTL Chile earthquake on the NewsHour page that I rewrote. Who's responsible for Chile, and what are your ideas going forward for the country TTL? Also, Benkarnell, did you have any thoughts about Hawaii, seeing as the Big Island is going to take the biggest hit from the tsunami?BrianD 19:44, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I wrote the initial news headline and I guess I am responsible for Chile as well. I'm waiting for some more info on the Chile article before seeing what I am going to write. I don't expect any major geopolitical shifts. No doubt in this ATL Chile would have a better recovery than Haiti in this ATL is having. Of course I'm not expert on Chile so I would accept any help that is offered. Mitro 20:21, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Woomera Test Range
I checked out if Australia had any sort of rocket base which could serve as their centre for space exploration and I came across this. The Woomera Test Range. Do you think it would have a high priority? If this was discussed before, I'm sorry for bringing it up again.--Vladivostok 18:50, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Satellite capabilities
I saw the news item on the USSR launching a satellite into space a few days back TTL. Is the USSR the only nation in TTL with satellite capabilities? Am I wrong to assume that the SAC and ANZC would have satellites (military and civilian) in space as well? What about Mexico, or Japan, or Celtic Alliance?BrianD 02:11, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I do think they have satellites, it's just that no one is writing about that. And GLONASS is a joint venture under the sponsorship of the LoN. So, the ANZC and SAC definitely have space programs. But the latter three... I highly doubt it. Japan is not being expanded upon at the moment, Mexico is your domain so everything goes and I just can't see the Celtic Alliance concentrating on this alone. However, there is a joint ADC space program.--Vladivostok 11:15, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Perhaps ANZC helped the Celtic Alliance by launching a communications satellite or two...and did the same for Mexico (or, perhaps, it was Brazil who helped launch the Mexican satellites)?BrianD 20:08, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that would certainly be a possibility. I thought you meant some other rocket bases located outside of the ANZC or Guayana. But sending satellites for someone else... I don't see any harm in that, any nation operating the existing bases could send satellites for nation who have enough money for it to happen. I was thinking on making an article for the ANZC base, as you can see in the Woomera question I brought up. But, since Australia is considered to be no big threat, I guess it is safe to say that the site survived.--Vladivostok 20:35, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

British Channel 4 documentary with themes relevant to 1983: Doomsday
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1630001170436508560&hl=en# BrianD 20:08, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Question for editors regarding Vermont, Texas and Piedmont...and potential future proposals
Would it affect the TL if I rewrote Vermont to have had limited contact with other nations before 2000, for Piedmont to be a known nation state in the Southeast by the early 2000s...and for West Texas to have not been isolationistic, but have had its conflict with Mexico, worked it out and become a somewhat influential nation in the old Southwest?

I'm asking these questions with SouthWriter's recent comments on various talk pages in mind: how realistic are our proposals? Specifically here, how realistic is it for nation states as complex and (relatively) large as we've built them to have been unknown in their respective regions for as long as 25 years after Doomsday? I wrote Vermont and Texas as isolationalists because I tried to work within the framework of previously established canon; I assumed canon had been established for legitimate reasons, and unless there was a darn good reason to change it it was best to work within it.

Therefore, I come to all of you, particularly the editors who have been here the longest. BrianD 04:14, March 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Go for it, if you need any help let me know :) --GOPZACK 04:32, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Piedmont, SouthWriter and I could come up with a proposal involving that nation.

Re: Texas: The history of West Texas stays the same through the '85 earthquake. It even goes isolationistic in regards to Mexico. This time, though, the outcry from the people is so great that the government eventually decides to reverse itself and pursue relations with Mexico. The increasing presence of American refugees in Mexican government and business helps West Texas's cause. Around this time, American refugees come under increasing persecution from some nationals, leading to riots on both sides and unfortunate assaults on, and a few murders of, American refugees by radical nationals, and a few Mexican nationals by refugees. The Mexican government knows it has to deal with the crisis, so it contacts Canberra to ask for Bush's advice on the situation (since de la Madrid met with Reagan, you would have to think that he would contact Bush on this matter, since Texas would be considered American territory. It would have some ramifications for the APA, and rewriting portions of that history, though). Bush encourages Mexico - urges, actually - to reopen ties with West Texas, and while knowing there is nothing his administration could do in the situation, he reminds Mexico Texas is still technically part of the USA.

Texas and Mexico make up, with Mexico City/Mexica recognizing Midland as the capital of the Republic of Texas. Mexican scouts discover isolated survivor communities in south Texas, and a string of communities in eastern Texas having formed their own Texas provisional government. Waco - midway between Midland and Nacogdoches - is trying to get back on its feet; the day Mexican Army scouts walk into the city, and inform the people that Mexico, Bush, Australia, South America, et al have survived Doomsday, is the day that turns it around for the beleaguered city. Instead of descending into a cycle of violence and despair, the people find hope.

Gradually, Mexico helps facilitate the meeting of President Atkins in Mexico with his counterparts from east Texas, and Waco, and representatives from the south Texas towns, villages and remaining survivor camps (including one possibly set up in a KOA. Sometime in the 1990s, the four camps agree to reunify the state and send representatives to a constitutional convention at Baylor University. Bush even agrees to send a representative, though for other reasons the APA never gets up there before its dissolution. The APA dissolves, with the added provision of granting Texas the option of joining the ANZC, or Mexico, or going independent. My meager understanding of TTL Texas history suggests to me Texans would choose independence, especially given peaceful relations with Mexico. In 1996, the Republic of Texas, with its capital in Waco midway between east and west Texas, is born. George H.W. Bush will have visited the new republic in the late 1990s. By the founding of the LoN, Texas will have good relations with Dinetah and Utah, as well as Broken Bow, Hot Springs and Louisiana (all of which it discovered during various Texas/Mexico scouting expeditions), Hattiesburg and Natchez, as well as Cuba, the East Caribbean Federation, Puerto Rico, central America, south America and of course the ANZC. The South Padre Island port will have been established by then as well. With some Mexican nationals immigrating north for the job opportunities, and with some American refugees opting to return to Texas or move there (from Arizona or New Mexico or California, via Mexican refugee camps), the 2010 TTL population could be anywhere from a million to 3 million. G.W. Bush could shuttle back and forth between Midland and Mexico City, setting up for a 2012 Presidential campaign. Conaway would be the President.

Re: Vermont: independence leads to isolationism, but contact with Aroostook, the St. Lawrence Raiders and Canada leads to some sort of "Atlantic treaty" by the late 1990s. An unofficial confederation of New England is formed, with Vermont taking the lead in establishing a port in southern Maine. The question of New Hampshire independence or being part of Vermont would need to be settled. I would also need to write in the Keene proposal as well.

Thoughts?BrianD 15:20, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Another (quasi)review of 1983: Doomsday
Someone at AH.com tried to start a discussion on the TL:. Mitro 14:51, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

British survivor nations
Seeing as how there are something like half a dozen fair sized "nations" in Britain that have a degree of contact with each other might it not be an idea to have some sort of mini-League of Nations for Britain?? Verence71 20:54, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

=CURRENT ARTICLE PROPOSALS= Please list any and all current article proposals and their discussion here. If the proposals only involves a specific section of the article, please state that. Also remember to use  when reviewing new articles.

Article created by Bob. Question: would the UK manage to evacuate 900k to southern Africa? Mitro 17:37, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

answer: they couldnt becuse it would be impossible a more realistic figure would be 200 max becuse with fual souces gone and there would nned space for machinary and crops--Owen1983 17:19, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

I just started with 900k to provoke debate. I agree that it should be smaller, but 200 is a gross underestimation. Your average British ship houses and provides for men in excess of 300. I think the bar should be set about 300k and we can discuss from there. Bob 16:36, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

200 would be about right due to food been rationed and coal or diesel needed to make the journey--Owen1983 13:11, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Even if you can organise an exodus of about 200k brits to southern Africa (use cruiseliners etc. and it goes okey..) what would you do with the problems in te host nation?? food, shelter, public opinion, neigbour states reaction?? As far as imagine 200.000 of mainly white people of the "Empire" -though long gone- nearing the shore of southerm africa...a HUGE conflict potential IMO.--Xi&#39;Reney 00:32, January 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought we had nixed the whole idea of a coordinated mass evacuation of Britain - a LONG time ago. My main problem: why, why, why, why would they just up and decide to go to South Africa? They had no idea that a pro-British state was taking shape down there! South Africa may have drawn some British refugees, but I personally have huge problems with the idea of a single Moses-style exodus to New Britain. Small numbers of refugees from Britain to SA would probably have landed first at the cape, but would have found their way to New Britain eventually given the anti-White climate in Cape Town. Bob, we have been over this endlessly, month after month after month. Please stop pushing for it. Benkarnell 19:26, January 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have altered it so its a few thousand. The government and supporting troop as well as bureaucrats and the like. The population of New Britain has increased as Brits from ANZC Celtic Alliance and other places flood into New Britain.
 * The numbers from other parts of the world would be small though. The CA and ANZC are major world powers with a large economies. Would that many people really prefer a small refugee state in chaotic Africa where most of the population is Xhosa or Anglo-African? Mitro 19:13, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe New Britain sets up a major operation to begin moving more people from mainland Britain who don't want to be a part of the Celtic Alliance, Clevelande/Northumberland/Albion, or Bentwater/Woodbridge. With a major waystation in Avalon, Guinea-Bisseau.Oerwinde 20:16, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it would depend whether they thought Bentwaters/Woodbridge would be big enough to worry about Verence71 16:20, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I question the whole operation, I mean, who would want to leave their home they've always known for some seemingly backwards African country that's got an identity crisis when they could have a more stable life where they've always lived. That's my thought. I wouldn't leave my home and move to the opposite ends of the Earth just because they promised to be the "same-old Britain".Louisiannan 22:45, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Because your home is now an even more backward and unhealthy place which offers you much less opportunities. New Britain is located in former South Africa, probably the most developed country in pre-DD Sub-Saharian Africa, barely a backward country. Even the Britons would know this fact. Grand Prince Paul II. 22:57, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

this whole situation is conusing. New Britian is part of canon, yet we can't decide how the evacuation that led to its exsistance came about!HAD 10:40, February 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * So... what's the consensus here? I'm in favor of obsoletizing. This whole idea of an "evacuation" makes no sense whatsoever. Benkarnell 15:58, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Do you even attempt to read the pages?! I apologise in advance but I am extremely annoyed. As HAD says above, New Britain is part of the canon. In this canon it says that a small part of Britains populace mostly military personell and a remnants of the government fled to South Africa to form a new state and bide their time until a day came when the economy was large enough to transport larger civilian populations to South Africa or better yet leave Africa and return to the homeland. Bob 16:58, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Bob is right. There was some evacuation of Britain after Andrew allied himself with ANC/Anglo-Africans. It was small but it still happened and it is canon. Mitro 04:11, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Moving tens of thousands of people, all at once, from Britain to South Africa, following a nuclear war? There's nothing small about that. Benkarnell 05:46, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Although this might sound idiotic, i propose we leave discussing this issue to a later date if a consenous cannot be reached. Moving large amounts of people by sea is not as impratible as it sounds. the Germans managed to put six thousand people on the Wilhelm Gustav or whatever she was called. HAD 10:25, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for setting a bad tone. I really thought this was something we had discussed and rejected (over and over). I was thinking about this: could we re-tool this as more of a broad-based movement of many people moving over a span of time, rather than a one-time event organized by the authorities? Less Book of Exodus, more Grapes of Wrath? There's nothing inherently wrong with a British government-in-exile going to a faraway country; it's what we have the Americans doing, and it's a nice parallel, really. But after that, how about instead of orchestrating a massive project to bring "the best" people to Africa, they bring over a very small number (more would really be impossible - HAD, going from East Prussia to Kiel is wholly different from England to the Cape!). But they also leave the message among the survivors, "We're starting fresh down in Africa - come down, anyone who can." The idea that a place is actualy welcoming refugees would sound like a miracle, and for the next 5-10 years a steady trickle of oceangoing Brits makes the trip. Can we do it that way? My biggest problem this entire time has been the scale of the undertaking, organized by a government without any real resources. Benkarnell 11:43, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

i like the sound of that, Ben.HAD 12:22, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I haven't looked at this article in a while. Its been changed recently to say "several ten thousand" people were evacuated and that is just implausible. I was arguing for it based on the smaller number that was once listed. So as it is now this article cannot be graduated until it reflects only the smaller, more plausible amount. Mitro 13:21, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

According to History of New Britain-article, the government-organised evacuation was done between 1986-1992. That's enough time to evacuate much more than "very small number" of Britons, even if every convoy transport only few thousand people. And this was not the end of British emigration to New Britain.Grand Prince Paul II. 19:14, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, if this is re-conceived as a long, slow trickle rather than a big, grand event I think it's definately acceptable. Benkarnell 15:13, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

and
this is the basic idea for a survior society in china-- very open to suggesting at this point.
 * It's wickedly dystopian, along the lines of Thunder Bay and aspects of Superior's history - I like it. I don't know enough about Chinese history or culture to say whether it's a realistic Chinese dystopia, though. It also seems quite large - I'm wary of creating large survivor states in China before we nail down more of its history. Benkarnell 22:11, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

yea, the size kind of bothers me, though its sparcely populated--I think. I'm kind of hoping that this will start chineese history for this TL-- when I went through this site for the first time, the abscence of any information on China after DoomsDay stuck out like a sore thumb. As far as I can tell, China was suprise attacked by the USSR, which caused a total government breakdown. A coastal few towns seem to have survived, as they are mentioned in tiawan's article, but under the impression there is no larger (or at least better) civilization in the interior. Some stuff on the edges has been claimed by the USSR, but they have simply stayed away from going farther south into manchuia--implying it not worth it due to the state of things. China has a history of major Civil wars (all of the most deadly conflicts of the last two hundred years are european conflicts or chinese civil wars), and they have a history of war lords. As for Chinese culture, my idea is that the culture was in flux at that point, and Hong Long (the emperor) got rid of those who opposed it. but I do think it could be smaller are you thinking population (its at about a twentieth or less of what the area would be now) or land holdings?Desert viking 05:33, January 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess the area: it seems like a really big chunk of China, especially for a monarchist revival like this. Given China's decades without a monarch, and the long ideological purge wrought by the Cultural Revolution, it seems like a would-be monarch would only be able to maintain control of a smaller group). But I'm not dead set against it, and it could work given enough justification. It's a revival of the warlordism of the 1930s, in a way. Did any of those warlords pretend to be "emperors"? What would they be most likely to call themselves in a post-Communist China ruin? Benkarnell 03:37, January 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * The warlord era, at least in the north was fought over who controlled the Beiyang Government. None of the warlords claimed to be Emperor but a lot of them called themselves or were called Marshal something. I would imagine that in a post-Doomsday China the warlords would call themselves Marshals and would all claim to be the legitimate government of the People's Republic Verence71 18:57, February 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's mostly what I was thinking. We've played with reviving monarchies in various places (Prussia, Luxembourg, New Britain, Orleans), and I've been guilty of it myself (Hawaii, Cocos Islands). But China seems an unlikely place for it to happen, what with the legacy of communism and its impact on the public consciousness. It's for the same reason that we haven't had any monarchies arise in the former USA (except Hawaii, where I honesly believe the restoration was justified, even likely). I like the idea of a Marshall running things in this region. And then I'd be more OK with a largish survivor state in Anhui. Benkarnell 03:15, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

All right, I've changed It to be slightly less monarchal--- it still has the feel, but it avoids the words. However, this means the name of the article would have to change, something I don't know how to do. Right now The best name I can come up with is the "Dragon Lands" which just doesn't sound right. The whole country could be refered to as the Dragon Army, or the article could be rewritten as a post-doomsday history of Anhui. does anyone have any ideas? (I don't really like any of mine so far) Desert viking 17:10, February 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * It sounds good. I'm almost totally ignorant of Chinese culture so I cn't offer any real advice on how to rebrand it. I do know that "Hong Chow" looks like a pretty archaic spelling - probably the Pinyin Hong Chao would be better. He is a totally fictional man, I'm guessing? Benkarnell 15:27, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Nanchung and
a resilient group of chinese who have built a nation around a leader in resonse to threats from the Dragon Kingdom.Desert viking 00:57, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Parthenopean Republic
So,i've done a new article.For now it's only an idea.If the Second Sicily war gets approved,i think it's pretty much likely to exist.

My article about a small town in Illinois that survived Doomsday. Mitro 00:45, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I had been hoping to contribute to this one, since I actually know a lot about it, but I don't think it's going to happen. Graduation time? Benkarnell 16:43, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually could we wait before graduating this. I want a chance to finish writing the history of the city-state first. I realize this has been a proposal for a month now but I am just asking for a little more time. Mitro 17:31, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those general articles. Thoughts and comments welcomed. Mitro 02:56, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, I think that more needs to be added based on the fruitful discussion we had. Maybe I can do that if I don't find work today (increasingly likely :. The main thing, to me, is that the term "education" should have a broader scope meaning "teaching children the skills necessary to survive". Even in some of the largish survivor states, most of that probably occurs outside formal school builings. "Homeschooling" (probably not the term used) only gets a quick mention near the bottom, whereas it's probably the norm for large numbers of people. Benkarnell
 * I realize some of that fruitful discussion was created by my edits, but I really don't have the time to put more work on the article. So if Ben or anyone else wants to take a stab at it, go ahead. Mitro 19:59, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Olmsted
My proposal for a theocratic dictatorship in former Minnesota. --Jnjaycpa 21:02, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

From the short stub, I have doubts that this would happen. However, this free ebook may give you a little insight into the megachurch that has developed out of the former "First Baptist Church there in Rochester, MN. A short history is found at the church's website with a link to a downloadable book.

I picked this church from the ten that google earth brought up because it had no denomination attached to it. It changed its name to Autumn Ridge Church. In order to have a viable "theocratic republic" you have to have a megachurch already established with a near fanatical following. We are trying to deal with the believable rather than the fanciful here. I doubt if a megachurch (especially Baptist) would become an "Old Testament" Church in the way your envision. You might get a "Reformed" Church (that believes in what we call Christian Reconstructionism ) that would set up such a republic, but such churches tend to be small.SouthWriter 00:31, January 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, stranger things have happened. But it's true that most USAmericans would hold on to at least some of the political ideals they were raised on, freedom of religion first among them. OTOH, a self-governing, autocratic religious community is not at all hard to imagine, especially in a post-apocalyptic world. People gather around a charismatic leader or organization, which slowly increases his/her/its degree of control. There doesn't even need to be an established church before 1983. However, a community of 25,000 seems a tad high for such a community... in a wide-open world like this, it would be fairly easy for the disaffected (i.e. anyone who did not buy into the regime's spiritual claims) to leave for another town. And it seems hard to believe this many people sticking around in a place like this. Then agiain, it is a very different world. I'm on the fence. Benkarnell 00:48, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Point noted. I'll probably cut it down to about 10K. In my storyline, the Rochester government falls apart and a charismatic preacher joins with a National Guard unit takes over. The city was largly abandond and the people left and the survivors went to the countryside.--Jnjaycpa 01:24, January 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. And I was thinking: if the settlement is prosperous and successful, or at least more so than its neighbors, it may well be fairly big. Some people may well put up with living there if it beats leaving. I was also thinking: I'm surprised we haven't seen more communities like this. Imagine after the collapse of civilization. People would come together to live with others who shared their religious views. Naturally they would govern themselves in a way that we might call a "theocracy". There wouldn't have to be antything insidious or sinister about it - it would just be people regulating their own religious community. The American frontier was filled with settlements like that. If it's a small community where everyone basically holds the same beliefs, it doesn't have to degenerate into an oppressive dicatorship. Problems will only start to arise when the younger generation grows up, and they question the norms and beliefs of the foundrs. Benkarnell 23:22, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

I decided to change the name to Christian Republic of Olmsted. --Jnjaycpa 05:50, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Karelia
A proposal for a survivor nation in the former USSR. --Jnjaycpa 05:11, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Territorially speaking is it based around this part of Russia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Karelia?? Verence71 20:23, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I assume that in a large region between the killzones of Leningrad and Murmansk there would be some survivors. The only question I have is if there are any potential targets in that region.Jnjaycpa 20:48, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

This link might help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leningrad_Military_District Verence71 21:00, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. After a little research I found that there was a minor military airbase in Petrozavodsk, which means it was nuked. For the moment, I'll assume no other nukes fell in that region.Jnjaycpa 01:04, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

70% or so of the population of Karelia is ethnic Russian so surely Russian would be the main language??

Ethnic Karelians themselves are about 10% of the population so maybe at some point post-Doomsday there could be an armed uprising among them Verence71 16:02, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

I decided to split Karelia into two parts: a Finnish-dominated democratic republic (Republic of Karelia) and a pro-Siberian regime (East Karelia).

According to this scneario, Soviet and Finnish Karelian forces fought in the winter of 1983 (Second Winter War). By spring of 1984, the Finnish Karelians reclaimed most of the territory lost in 1940. In 1988, the Finnish Karelians decide against rejoining Finland, and declare an independent nation, the Republic of Karelia (Karelia). The Soviets retreated and set up the Provisional Soviet Socalist Republic of Russia (East Karelia). By 2010, Karelia will formally join in the Nordic Union, while East Karelia will declare its alligence to Siberia.

Jnjaycpa 02:33, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

I've started a proposal for Soviet Karlia. Jnjaycpa 06:10, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Mexico
My expansion on the already canonized portions of the article on Mexico (aka United Mexican States). I want to keep what has been approved as canon; my proposals would expand on the history of the nation, as well as its culture, government, military, politics, and the influence of American refugees in the nation. --BrianD 18:31, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to talk to JorgeGG. He had some ideas regarding Mexico: User blog:JorgeGG/Mexico (Doomsday:1983) - Some ideas for refactoring. Mitro 23:52, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm still very skeptical about the whole governor-general thing. If Mexico wanted to create a counterbalance to the President, then I think they'd be much more likely to create a more powerful Vice-Presidency, or something like that. There's no precedent whatsoever for a G-G in Latin America. The term itself is odd, since it means "someone who represents the monarch." I understand canon and all that, but the Mexico page was written (just) before we began labeling things as Proposals, and I think that a lot of people who were active at the time didn't even read it. Someone tried to start a discussion about it, but by then Guinesscap was gone and could not respond. Benkarnell 15:45, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, most if not all the article needs revising: the quarantine zones, political parties the whole shebang. Ramdominsanity 20:27, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

It's slowly being revised now, Random - what are your thoughts and suggestions? BrianD 20:38, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

I have revised much of the history up through the 1990s. I will admit this is taking quite a while, but a) I don't have the time I'd like b) I prefer to take it slowly and add stuff as it comes to me, rather than rush through it and write a scenario that makes little sense c) I want to make sure the new rewrite works with West Texas, Cuba, East Carribbean and central American nations' histories. Thoughts?BrianD 22:41, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reaction BrianD. My thoughts are thus: abolishment of the "Quarantine zones" by 1990, alllowing multiparty politics, trade with Central America, more closely allied with the CANZ due to large American refugee population and a very slow expansion north into the former arizonia and new mexico. Ramdominsanity 21:16, March 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Random. I've actually thought about other changes involving Mexico and Texas, and getting rid of the isolationism that I wrote up for West Texas. There could be tensions between the two regions in the '80s, but once things were settled with the American refugees, then both countries could become close allies by the mid-90s.Any early expansion into New Mexico needs to have Dinetah in mind, so Louisiannan would need to be consulted on that.BrianD 23:03, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Bob. Mitro 20:58, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you think the attitude of the different former Commonwealth nations will be? Victoria is still legally a monarchy and would probably welcome this revival. Fiji seems a likely member as well, and so does the East Caribbean Federation, composed entirely of former Commonwealth members except for the US Virgin Islands. But what about the major countries, Australia-New Zealand and Canada? Andrew is clearly the rightful King of all three nations under their pre-Doomsday constitutions; but will they be willing to join an organization headed by New Britain? It's got a history of belligerence (it still occupies the Xhosa state) and, unfair though it may be, I'll bet that the public in both Canada and ANZ believe that it is an "apartheid country". (I know that's not true, but it's a very realistic public perception, IMO.) But a much more serious consideration is that NB is openly and unapologetically Imperialist. Getting caught up in that sort of thing is exactly what they don't want at a time when both countries are trying to heal their relations with South America. Benkarnell 15:47, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank/Super. Mitro 20:58, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

I created an infobox for the article to get the ball rolling.

Supersonic91 19:57, February 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you going to do anything with this? It's a little difficult without knowing what's up in Ethiopia and Eritrea (which were one country in 1983, with substantial Soviet influence). Benkarnell 15:38, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * is nearby this area. You might want to check it out before writing more. Mitro 20:01, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln, PUS
Here is the preliminary work on the state of Lincoln in the Provisional United States of America.--SouthWriter 01:30, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so simply "Lincoln" will work as a page. I see now that the "other" Lincoln goes by "Republic of Lincoln," being independent as it is. I'm wondering if that Republic will settle for maybe the bottom third of the state (basically, below the Platte River). I've made that suggestion at the Republic of Lincoln talk page.SouthWriter 05:49, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Article I made based on discussion. Riley.Konner 07:50, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Per the scenario I listed earlier on the New Vegas discussion page, this is a nation consisting of parts of Nevada and adjacent California which I have been working on. I hope to proivde a map soon. However, I don't want to accidently encroach on New Vegas in regards to borders. When I originally envisioned this, I had loosely used Route Six to define the southern border, imagining everything south of there was of little concern to this nation. I welcome comments on this article, which I will add more to as time allows. Thanks..Fxgentleman 05:21, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you link to the page? Benkarnell 16:25, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Keene
This is an idea I had for a new nation based out of the Adirondacks in upstate New York. Zackshine 23:49, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Speaking a Libretatrian myself, i don't think people would want to leave a developed state to establish their own one in a nuclear wasteland. Even New Britian came about due to nessecity. Ramdominsanity 20:31, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Well the idea was that even after an all out nuclear war, people will still have their ideals, and will want to establish what they WANT not what is necessary. This libertarian movement is based extremely loosely off of an actual movement of libertarians to the state of New Hampshire called the Free State Project. The people part of this project are leaving what might possibly be a comfortable location, but have given it up to move to a new locality that may not be what they envision. The same with the Republic of Keene and their attempt to set up a government, a nation, and a culture that is directly built by their own motives, not those of the Republic of Vermont. In any nation, in any situation, there will be dissenters and those who decide to move elsewhere to seek a more perfect union. Zackshine 20:39, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * A 100k people leaving to set up a new nation from an already established one seems implausibly high. The Free State Project you mentioned has only succeeded in getting 700 people to move since being established in 2001, and this was done without dealing with a nuclear apocalypse. Since Keene has only been created this year, it would be incredibly difficulty to find food and shelter for that many people right away. I would suggest starting with a smaller population and working it up with new immigration as the years go by. We should also consider the fact that its more likely for Libertarians in Vermont would try to work within the system before leaving to form a new nation.
 * Also what about the people already living in upstate NY? What do they feel about this mass movement of outsiders settling in their land? Mitro 20:45, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the population since first writing it down. That's going to be cut down substantially (as I was unaware of the workings of sort of real time in 1983 timeline). The people living in Upstate NY have no quarells with the new people moving in...if I may have freedom to explore the possibilities, one possiblity was that the people of the area were afraid of being in close proximity to the nuclear blasts, and so headed outside of New York (though, escape might have proven futile as they were surrounded by nukes as seen on the map). The few remaining have accepted the new arrivals; they really have no choice, the exodus brought some supplies and much needed help from professionals who moved into the area. Also the present republic of Vermont will probably, as seen in the real world, not accept fully what these libertarians crave. They are all or nothing. If you have any other ideas, please let me know! I'd like to see this get off the ground! Zackshine 20:55, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * While there may be 100,000 people in New Hampshire who want to reform the state, it is more likely in this timeline that a couple of thousand people maximum would leave to form their own republic. (There aren't even a million people in all of Vermont). The standard of living is one of the highest in North America, and Vermont's government is pretty free and libertarian. A couple of things: 1. Plattsburgh, as it is near Burlington, is under the control of the Republic of Vermont (review the history of Vermont article). 2. I'm not sure there's anyone left in New York state, unless you count survivalists and handfuls of families tucked away in a non-radioactive zone near a water source, because of the massive numbers of hits the northeast would have taken on DD. But I could be wrong - the northeast might have tiny survivor states all over despite the hits it likely took on doomsday. BrianD 21:00, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't assume the remaining population of upstate New York would greet the new arrivals as their saviors. Even if we assume that most of the population would accept the settlers, there will always be some who will see it as an invasion (look at Iraq). Remember these aren't backwoods savages, these are Americans with access to modern tech who might even have created their own tiny survivor states in the decades that followed Doomsday. I'm just worried that the settlement of Keene was just too easy. [EDIT] Yeah the population definitely needs to be changed. Currently you have every 1 out of 8 people in the entire nation of Vermont getting up to leave. Mitro 21:09, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * As Doomsday becomes a receding memory, I imagine that Americans everywhere are starting to look around and realize they live in a fairly empty country with lots of open land. It's 100% plausible that the old Pioneering Spirit will reawaken in some of them, and dropping everything to found a new settlement based on The Way Things Should Be does not sound so harebrained as it might to us. I do not think that this group of New Hampshirians could conquer the Adirondacks in a stroke. But they can definitely leave Vermont and create a new, self-governing town and farming community out that way - there's bound to be enough open space. There will be some conflicts with people living there already, sure. That's all a part of the Pionering Spirit! If the Republic of Keene is shrunk to the size of a city-state, I think it can be a fascinating piece of American culture and politics. Oh, also: right now is a poor time to found new settlements - that area hasn't seen the end of winter yet. How about bumping it back to March of 2009? You can write about how they've fared in their first year. Benkarnell 21:29, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Keene can't work. Just as it is now its to optimistic and needs to be scaled back. Mitro 22:26, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

why is the flag black & white? i've never seen a falg like that before, Ramdominsanity 13:16, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all the good ideas! I'll be editing this properly and adding a few new additions to it. 1. The population will be scalled back appropriately. 2. Keene will be a city state looking to expand with others in the future. 3. The timeline will be set back to March 2009 and the first yeat of their settlement will be recorded. [EDIT] And the flag was randomly put together by me. I chose black and white as to set it apart from other nations, maybe in the spirit of these pioneering folk! Zackshine 18:26, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

i think its inappropriate that a libretatrian nation does not have a flag that expresses this. how about making it golden yellow, with a bit of red. a Libretarian flag! (PS: i consider myself a libretarian, put the UK Libretarian Party only has 500 people in it. Which Sucks) Now, if you'll excuse me, i'm off to watch Jeff Dunham on YoutubeinMyFaceBook. Bye!Ramdominsanity 19:07, February 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Black and white is good, definitely distinctive and different, but the one you made is a weird black-white-grayscale gradient, which doesn't look like any flag i've ever seen, and which would be impossible to actually make on cloth without some kind of laser printer (which the good people of Keene don't have)! Benkarnell 20:22, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Ha, alright, there's a lot of stuff I need to get done! I'll fix that flag up quick. Off subject; I've been talking to my proffessor at school about why more people don't accept the libertarian philosophy, politics. He said this. All groups of people must go through three steps, I can't remember exactly how it goes. 1. They are ridiculed. 2. They are fought against. 3. They are accepted. Zackshine 01:34, February 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * And libertarianism *there* is bound to be a whole lot different from *here*. Our libertarians are responding to a system where they feel governments are becoming too large and powerful. The post-DD libertarians live in a system where most people live without any real government, so really they're trying to create a state from scratch from completely new principles. Maybe they like what they see outside the "civilized" states - local control, a lot of individual agency (at least, outside the "evil warlord" areas) - and are trying to combine the best of the small survivor vilage system with elements of larger-scale national organization. Something like that. Benkarnell 03:43, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

its been more then a week since this has last been discussed, yet Keene remains unedited. Also, by "individual agency" do you mean "individual liberty", Ben? i've never heard "agency" used in that context. Ramdominsanity 19:09, March 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * The number 1 definition in the American Heritage Dictionary for "agency" is "The condition of being in action; operation," and second is "The means or mode of acting; instrumentality." The basic idea that an agency is something that gets something done. "Individual agency" would be a condition where ordinary folks take care of themselves -- that famous "rugged individualism" that made America great. It is not that we were "granted" liberty to get things done by any government, but that we just went out there and did it -- sometimes to our detriment, in fact. While a great strength, it can lead to arrogance that can be dangerous. SouthWriter 03:55, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you SouthWriter. I must say that being a Southern Englishmen will enivitably lead to confusion when working with Eastern Europeans, Carolinians and Canadians, not to mention South Americans!Ramdominsanity 20:29, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Indiana
My proposal for what has happened in the state of Indiana since Doomsday. BrianD 00:07, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Any objections to graduation? Mitro 14:42, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

I have been thinking about updating this page but I need some help. First off what exactly happened to ? There has been some debate about whether it remained a unified nation or whether it collapsed after Doomsday. A decision on this will help me work out the history of Assyria and also effect this article:. On a side note I changed the article of Jordan a little in response to my edits. The Jordan article stated that Jordan and Assyria share a border which seems unlikely considering the likely location of Assyria in northern Iraq. Mitro 14:49, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Iran has been more or less a unified country in some form for thousands of years. I would keep it that way.Oerwinde 16:42, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

I have no issue with the change as if applies to Jordan. At the time, my understanding, based on my reading, was that Iraq was being referenced as the Assyrian Republic. However, I would like to raise a question concerning Iraq. Ever since I first started my work on the Middle East, I have been crafting what I thought would be a sensible scenario for the future. However, I got delayed in putting this out for consideration. Further, it involves several articles I did not create. Since I am getting started again on this region, I wanted to present my scenario for this portion of the Middle East. Iraq and Iran reach a temporary ceasefire following Doomsday in their war, with neither being struck by bombs since it made little sense for this to happen. Iraq emerges from this period of regrouping in earlier 1984 (perhaps enlivened with Soviet military refugees and weapons looking for work), launching a full scale attack against Iran using Scud missiles as they did per OTL, with the difference they heavily bombard Iran and their cities with chemical weapons, since there is no US, USSR, or UN to stop them. An invasion follows with Iraq reaching Tehran and the nation surrendering and Ayatollah Khomeini dying either in the attack or from a heart attack (he died in 1989 OTL). The Kurdish region of Iran breaks off and merges with its parent region from the old Turkey to create Kurdistan. Iraq annexes western Iran along with Kharg Island with the remaining portion of Iran forming a new government. The rest of the Arabian Peninsula does not do anything to stop them, given they don’t care for the Islamic Republic. A few years pass and an emboldened S. Hussein overruns and annexes Kuwait as well and briefly threatens Saudi Arabia, who fights him off with the help of the other nations of the peninsula. He now turns against the survivor nation in eastern Syria (which I am getting ready to add) and invades. This is too much for Israel who orders Hussein to stop his advance. When he refuses, they nuke Bagdad, killing him, as well as dropping a bomb on his advance army. The new Iraq disintegrates and the Saudi’s and their allies take advantage of the chaos and invade, liberating Kuwait. The Kurdish region of Iraq finally breaks free and joins Kurdistan. It is important to note Hussein would never have given this area up while alive and had used repressive measures, including mass killings and chemical weapons, to control them. Under the benevolent influence of the Arabian Union (a coalition of Arabian nations akin to OTL European Union), Iraq regroups under a new name including their captured area of Iran. At this point, smaller sub nations would emerge such as the new Assyrian Republic. I am currently working on several Middle East articles, including one for Saudi Arabia, and would like to use some of this. Understandably, I don’t want to conflict with what someone else is laying out, so please give me your thoughts. --Fxgentleman 16:52, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure if Iran or Iraq would not be attacked. The US Department of Defense suggested in the 1980s that in case of WWIII the Soviet Union would invade the Middle East to deny the US access to the oil. Mitro 17:05, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

My general thought, has been nations firmly in one camp or the other (East vs. West) would make them likely targets of attack in 1983, which is why I argued (and still do) Egypt would have been hit. Iran hated both the US and the USSR. Iraq played both sides, but did tend to lean slightly to the Soviets. This does not put them on the list to likely get nuked. Also, we have to think back as to how this came about. The Soviets are reacting to what they believe is a sneak attack on Doomsday and as such, are going against those elements which immediately threaten it. If this was a thought out plan of conquest, then yeah, I would agree that a strike on Tehran would be a good idea followed by a ground invasion via Russia and Afghanistan. However, the USSR is going to be shattered and will not be thinking ahead towards something like this. This said, your point is good, but I cannot see how it applies in this case. --Fxgentleman 17:18, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

New York Rangers
A proposal for a paramilitary group in southern New York.Oerwinde 09:34, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Woomera Space Center
An article regarding the ANZC space program.--Vladivostok 07:32, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

A proposal for the HQ of the along with the history of the facility when Bush was there for a short while. --GOPZACK 04:35, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

A proposal for the BBC Wartime Broadcasting Service message after DD. --Jnjaycpa 15:14, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Zack. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is safely within Zack's zone of control that we can graduate this. Any objections? Mitro 14:43, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Ben. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by me. Hoping it will detail the American refugees who fled to other parts of the world after Doomsday. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

and
Series of Indiana related articles. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by new user. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Jack Vexx. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

and
Liberian related articles. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

and
Iowa related articles. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. See also. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Verence. See also. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by new user. Brian you should check this out. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Formerly a stub article expanded by South. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by new user. No offense but as is this article should not be graduated. For one thing it contradicts the history of Victoria. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Does anyone object to marking this article as obsolete? Mitro 19:12, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * No.BrianD 19:17, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Ramdominsanity 20:23, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I would like to wait and see what Ocelot does first. Mitro 05:07, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't help but agree with Mitro. Innocent until proven guilty. If he does nothing to help it become plausible then "off with its head!" Yankovic270 05:21, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Meh. Ocelot9011 7:05am PST March 11th, 2010

Article created by Yank. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

&
Some more ANZC associate states.--GOPZACK 20:43, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Tokelau should probably get a different flag: in real life it was designed just a year or so ago. Benkarnell 22:33, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed it to the old one. --GOPZACK 22:53, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

=FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES= Archive 1

''This subsection is placed to focus on things covering decisive, vital issues concerning the consistency of 1983: Doomsday as a whole and the Timeline specifically. PLease treat this section with the necessary respect and place things not belonging here below !! Comments of non-registered users will not be tolerated in this Talk section! This TL is not without flaws, and especially in the first time (me myself) a lot of things were inserted out of curiosity or not spending much time on repercussions. And due to the complexity level we have reached with 1983: Doomsday now each of these flaws might have world-spanning consequences... I will focus on identifying and eliminating those flaws/inconsistencies to strengthen the basis of the TL and prevent repercussions on the excellent contents written at all fronts. This of course in the established manner of consensus and discussions! I bring this up as a consequence of the "Canal discussion" further below with the intention keeping an eye on above mentioned things.'' Objections? --Xi&#39;Reney 22:14, November 11, 2009 (UTC)