I've noticed a trend lately - several new articles of late have been ignoring the note at the top of the list of nuclear strikes, and have not been adding them where needed. Maybe this needs to be put somewhere else as well? Or it should be revised?
This is important because I didn't even know about that. Ha! Silly me. ProfessorMcG 21:21, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
I have put together a map onto which "known" nuked sites are posted. It is on the general information article called "Doomsday (1983: Doomsday)." I took all the sites listed there so far and posted them as dots on the US map. Strikes elsewhere will have to wait for a visual aid, but they too are listed. The list of sites is incomplete and always being adjusted as articles get written. I put a note that the map should be updated as entries are added, but I don't know how many changes (if any) have been made. SouthWriter 21:39, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
I guess what I'm saying is that people are completely ignoring the big warning at the top of the page. Take the Macedonia guy for example, he's assuming that Seville was not hit simply because it is not listed there - yet, it would have been.
We should have it somewhere else prominent as well.
Part of the problem is that in order to create new articles/nations, an area would have to escaped destruction in order to flourish. As such, folks are looking the other way regarding this. Its logical to presume more than those sites which were listed were struck. This is where we as the writers need to step in and do research to see what would have likely to have been a target. With the US we can at least use the FEMA list where as we have to apply logic elsewhere based on research. This is what I have tried to do with my articles on the Middle East. With any NATO nation, logic would indicate NATO bases, major military airfields/ports, and large/prominent cities would be hit.--Fxgentleman 04:06, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
Vene, you don't understand. This is only for FIJI and VICTORIA right now. AMERICAN NATIONS may NOT join. This is the successor to the British Organization of Nations. Arstarpool 01:49, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Arstarpool, Kentucky would not be a part of that. GOPZACK 02:25, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
I got it straight in Vene's mind who would join. I say we archive the discussion asap. Arstarpool 03:39, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
....and there he goes again, adding countries that have denounced monarchism and ties to the UK. I'm rolling back his edits until he gets it through his mind that these nations, especially the African ones, would not join. Arstarpool 03:45, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
I joined them because Oerwinde joined Canada, and why they cannot join? VENEZUELA 03:48, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
Papua, Aussie and New Zeland, and all of the African countries, as well as Nauru, Cook, the Carribean, and all of the Pacific Islands can not join due to either become part of a new country, or not wanting to be led by the king. Why did you include Hawaii, California, Kentucky, Cascadia, and Deseret? Arstarpool 03:55, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
The CANZ remains tied to to the monarchy in name only ( I suppose), since it is a powerful state in its own right. I really don't know why Kentucky and Deseret would join. Their republics, with no ties to the original Commonwealth of Nations. The same appiles to California, amoungst others. HAD 09:27, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
I think both Australia and New Zealand separately might be members of the commonwealth if they so choose, but the ANZC as a federation of independent states would be entirely separate with no monarch.Oerwinde 09:38, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
I read this exact sentence somewhere:"Since Australia-New Zealand has specifically rejected monarchism". Arstarpool 14:41, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
It was in a recent WCRB news article. Nothing has been stated about the status of the monarchy in the ANZC aside from that. With multiple states making up the ANZC, and no mention of any re-writing of the constitutions of either state, I would assume that the british monarchy is still head of state of both Australia and New Zealand individually,Much like the british monarch is head of state of the individual canadian provinces, but not the ANZC, so Australia and New Zealand individually could potentially join the |Commonwealth, but likely wouldn't.Oerwinde 18:01, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
I think New Zeland would have a better chance. There was a referendum in OTL Australia to completely disconnect from Britain. Like no ties whatever, "your not our king", "we're on our own" type disconnect.
Also, I have an idea why Vene randomly added Kentucky, Utah, and California: They all have the word Commonwealth in their name. If he had actually read the article rather than add random nations, he would know. Arstarpool 18:07, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
They did have a referendum, but I believe it was unsuccessful, and I would think that would be the last thing on the minds of the Australian people at this point. Although if one were to be held, with the large number of american immigrants, it would likely pass.Oerwinde 18:37, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
Can nations from the British Isles join? Fegaxeyl 09:08, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
I would assume only if they accept Andrew as their monarch.Oerwinde 09:15, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
Even now in the Commonwealth you don't have to be a monarchy to join. South Africa is in the Commonwealth and it is a republic. Same rules apply. Bob 21:07, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
Heh, I know this is an archive and nobody will ever see it, but this discussion is the reason I wrote that line in the aforementioned news item. It seemed that with Britain long gone, Aussies and (less so) Kiwis would psychologically prepare themselves to move on from the British Crown.
This, of course, was when the ANZC was assumed to be a single federal state; we've since adjusted our thinking in order to make it "work" logically. But I can't imagine some integral (not associate) ANZC states re-joining the monarchy without the others. And then there's the Crown's association with an unpopular South African state. Benkarnell 17:47, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
You could always return this topic to the main talk page to reopen the discussion. Mitro 17:51, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
Spanish Republic
So, if the WCRB News article is to be believed, the referendum of the 21st of June has officially created a new state from the Spanish Republic and Pais del Oro. Do we all agree on this outcome and who would like to create this new article on this state?--Vladivostok 09:33, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
I agree, and I will make the article if someone can give me a name.
The fourth option "Republic of the Golden Lands of Spain" would be in spanish "Republica de las Tierras Doradas de España". Greetings! --Katholico 02:09, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
Now forgive me if I'm wrong, I skimmed through the article, but there is a lot of backstory to the article. I don't think that is necessary. There is already a perfectly good and noteworthy history on both the Pais del Oro and the Spanish Republic pages. Since the nations brand new, I thought the new article would simply deal with the present and future, not the past. Then again, only my opinion and the article is still a new one.--Vladivostok 07:10, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
PUSA Constitutional Convention
Wasn't the P.U.S.A supposed to hold a constitutional convention in which it may or may not have declared itself the successor to the United States of America back in Febuary? Arstarpool 15:13, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
We have been a bit busy, I'm afraid. HAD 09:54, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
Pais del Oro and Spanish Republic
Seeing as neither option has obtained more then 50% of the vote, shall we move the two top vote getters to a runoff in another poll? GOPZACK 01:44, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
So long as no one objects the Republic of Spain wins! GOPZACK 00:11, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
The Spanish Golden Lands won the first time around!!!! That's not fair! Really, it doesn't matter if they didn't get 50%! Arstarpool 21:32, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
It does sir, you see we work on consensus here. 50% is a good threshold for a proposal to reach on the ballot. Quite frankly I'd prefer it if it were a 60% threshold but 50% seems like a good number. --GOPZACK 00:47, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
Erie PA
Was it hit? Arstar contends it survived, what do you guys think of this? In the interest of full disclosure it is listed as a targeted site on the Doomsday page. --GOPZACK 03:23, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
The way I figure it, by what has been hit so far with the Soviet nukes, they were making an effort to take away most if not all of the US steel-making capacity. It would be possible that it escaped being nuked, but by how things look the steel mills would have been hit by something, for sure.
But I see no reason myself for it to have no ability to function as a capital if a missile hits the mills.
I would assume that the steel mills may have been spared, since the Soviets were undoubtedly screaming success at the destruction of Harrisburg, Philadelphia, and Pittsburg, they would have forgotten about the little steel mills at Eire. Arstarpool 04:29, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
I think the Soviets were too busy being incinerated by an American ICBM then to be "screaming with success" at the annihilation of Harrisburg, Philadelphia, and Pittsburg. --GOPZACK 04:54, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
Hmm...you're a real positive guy Zack. Arstarpool 05:03, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
I usually am but this TL's POD incase you've forgotten is a all out nuclear war man! --GOPZACK 05:16, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
We can't let one steel mill through, though? Come on, man. I'm afraid to ask for a group consensus, since it's just me and LG versus the rest of the bunch...Arstarpool 06:05, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
Thats how we do things here, by group consensus, so yes we are going to see what the community has to say. --GOPZACK 16:19, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
I would love to support this city surviving, but lets face it. The Soviets are going to attempt to destroy American industry in their attacks, just as the Americans did to them. If they would attack Wheeling they are definitely going to strike Erie. If you can figure out a way that Erie could have survived, I say go for it. If its plausible and not the cliche "malfunctioning ICBM" it should absolutely be used.
Ah, Yank. You seem to want vengance for the destruction of the Virginian steel mills. I will do a poll to see which of the survival scenarios is more plausible:
Option 1: "At 5:30 PM, a missile was detected 170 miles south of Erie. However, since the path of the missile was headed through the mushroom clouds around Pittsburg, the missile malfunctioned and crashed about 50 miles south of Erie, barely sparing the city from total destruction.
Option 2: A missile headed towards Erie was miscalculated when programmed and ended up crashing in Lake Erie.
Option 3: The nuclear missile launch site was hit by a missile launched from West Germany shortly after the missile directed towards Erie, damaging the missile and causing it to crash somewhere in western Poland.
Option 4: Erie itself was not an important target in a nuclear war since the Soviets had no knowledge of the steel mills located there.
If the nuke went in Lake Erie there could be a Tsunami & the pristine water mentioned in the Pennsylvania article would be ruined. --GOPZACK 05:26, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
If Option two wins that mean Pittsburgh was nuked not abandoned. --GOPZACK 05:28, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
& finally option three may effect the articles in the area & the exact location of the nuke must be determined, who knows where the devil it will land. --GOPZACK 05:28, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
I think a reasonable case could be made for the survival of Erie. At one time or another we have all discussed what might or might not have been targeted in the DD ATL. We have used the FEMA list as well as our own logic in trying to answer these questions. By this time I think we are in agreement 98% of all primary targets and at least 75% of secondary targets were struck. We can also agree it is reasonable to believe tertiary targets, which are normally population and industrial center sites targeted in follow-up attacks, likely escaped given the type of war which occurred, i.e. USSR reacting to assumed sneak attack. Further, both sides would have been exhausted by this point. The PA map shows no primary targets, five secondary targets, and 14 tertiary targets. I think a common misconception has been to assume why some targets were hit, believing one city was hit because it was a state capital or was known for certain industry, such as steel. Look beneath the surface however, and you find a military objective which would make said cities a target in the eyes of an enemy military. I carefully looked over the five secondary targets and found the following:
Harrisburg: Harrisburg IAP Air Guard Station home to 193 Special Operations Wing
Willow Grove: Willow Grove Naval Air Station
Scranton: Scranton Army Ammunition Plant, (US Army Industrial Facility)
Pittsburg: Allegheny County Airport, home to Pittsburgh Air Reserve Station, provides aerial refueling, air mobility and tactical airlift support to USAF & DOD)
Philadelphia: major metropolitan area and home to Philadelphia Naval Shipyards; Defense Industrial Supply Center, Defense Personnel Support Center, Philadelphia Naval Station
My thought for DD would be all five areas would be destroyed, with Philadelphia especially being hit by two to three 1+ megaton weapons and the remaining targets 1-2 550 kiloton devices. I would also err on the side of logic and say the tertiary targets in the Harrisburg area might be destroyed or abandoned given their proximity. Strikes on Harrisburg would also likely rupture 3 Mile Island, which while closed because of the 1979 accident would contribute to fallout. The southeast part of the state would be hit extremely hard from fallout caused by the Harrisburg and Philadelphia strikes and those in the DC-Baltimore corridor and the likely rupture of the 3 Mile Island. I would see it being abandoned or become devoid of most human life for many years to come. For good measure I would include areas adjacent to New Jersey and New York getting hit by the fallout from strikes in those regions, maybe not as bad as the se area. I have put together a map to show my thoughts. Erie would not be out of the woods though, given the fallout from places like Canada, Ohio, Indiana, etc. You would definitely see deaths and long term health issues. This is just my thoughts. What do you think?--Fxgentleman 01:41, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
I did my research. The only place fallout would be coming from would be Ohio, which has strikes right across the border. Arstarpool 02:21, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
Fx I think that is a very reasonable rational explanation for Erie surviving and so long as nobody objects I don't have a problem with it not being hit. GOPZACK 02:31, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
Looks fine, though Pittsburgh would have been hit with a bigger nuke / more of them than that. If you're going to hit a big city, you may as well get ALL the steel mills too ;)
Also, its not Pittsburg, but PITTSBURGH! Sorry, its bugged me that NONE of you can spell that right.
As I recall West and East Texas were supposed to unify back in June. I've gone ahead and created the "Republic of Texas" since no matter what happens we are going to need this page to document the new nation. Arstarpool 06:50, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
You best speak with the authors of the two Texases before you go any further. --GOPZACK 06:55, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
That would be me. Unification is on the timetable, but it's not something that just happens on the spur of the moment. The timeline is supposed to be as realistic as possible, and even now they wouldn't just be united. There's a process involved, from unifying government agencies amongst the different countries to setting up a military, that takes time. 2012 is my target date. BrianD 23:46, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
Tuscany
So, I recently noticed that the Tuscany article conflicts with stated events in the Sicily article, which is WAY older. This is something no one noticed until after it was canonized. I brought it up with Arstarpool and his response was that he was going to edit the Sicily article to allow for Tuscany to exist pretty much as is. I disagree with him on that and brought up several ways to make Tuscany fit much better and in a more interesting way. I'd like others to comment on this. The discussion can be found here.Oerwinde 08:33, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
Read the "Sicilian Occupation" part under Tuscany. That does not allow it to exist "as is" but still allows it into canon. If I wanted to, I could edit the Sicily article right now to say anything that would keep Tuscany in canon since it is now officially mine, but alas, I will not do that, but will just add this Sicilian Occupation to Sicily as well. Arstarpool 17:27, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
I hope your happy now. I made very few changes to Sicily. I made Tuscany conincide perfectly since there are "other revolts" in Sicily, I just made it one of those, and the first one to gain independence in 2004. Arstarpool 18:12, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
Tuscany isn't "yours" you are merely the caretaker of it. That does not entitle you to rewrite canon so another article you created can fit. --GOPZACK 17:59, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
Tuscany is his, Sicily is not. I still disagree with the Alpine confederation acting as an agressor. Yes it was for the liberation of a state, but they still claim to be neutral, I can't see them committing troops to an offensive action and breaking the truce, hence why I think it should either be defunct as a state until after the 2nd sicily war, or with like half of the Tuscan territory being outside Sicilian control, have the government moved to the north until the south is liberated after the 2nd sicily war.Oerwinde 18:01, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
The events portrayed are depicted in all three nations! It does briefly mention of Alpine acting as an agressor in Alpine, it fully mentions it in Sicily and it lists it as well in Tuscany. Arstarpool 18:12, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
Yes but you added it all today. The Alpine Confederation article states that the central government honors their devotion to neutrality, and the sicily article stated that they had established defensive lines to halt the Sicilian advance, but never counterattacked, instead sent a ceasefire, leading to the demarcation line through Tuscany. The AC breaking the ceasefire to attack sicily goes against the character the nation has established. Venice isn't strong enough to organize an assault alone. And the entire ADC is wary of entering all out war with Sicily, so I doubt the tuscans would be able to take them alone. Oerwinde 18:30, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
It looks like my choice is winning, and I swear by oath I did not vote twice :D Arstarpool
Madagascar Idea
I was wondering whether you'd be interested in an idea I had. What with Madagascar's economic problems, why not bring them into the African Economic Community. If they did that, I am sure New Britain would be willing to make political concessions. That way, Madagascar would recover, economically and politically, New Britain, KwaXhosa, Botswana and the RZA would be ardent supporters of Madagascar and they would be brought to the forefront of politics in Southern Africa. Not just that but Madagascar would become the largest nation in the union, giving it considerable leverage. Bob 10:05, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Bob. In OTL Madagascar had been slow to come over to the AEC. With the fall of its Soviet and French socialist support, though, I did not see that the People's Republic of Madagascar as being favorable to reaching out to Africa in that way. However, with the fall of the socialist republic, there might very well have been a change in this policy. The new democracy may have "worked better" in TTL.
Feel free to work on the period following 1991. I tried to imagine what would have gone differently, and came to the conclusion that Madagascar was fairly uninvolved in the affairs of the continent which was at the time in turmoil itself. Perhaps with different people arising to power (this is after 1983, so all's fair), there would be more co-operation. Anything has to be better than the nonsense that is happening there in OTL. Run your ideas by me on the Madagascar talk page. SouthWriter 15:48, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
A More Conservative America?
I've had this thought percolating in my mind for a while now but the recent discussion surrounding the Toledo election got me thinking about it again. With most urban more Liberal areas in America destroyed on Doomsday, leaving the rural, more conservative areas and mid sized cites (those swing districts you never hear the end of if you watch American TV in OTL) to fend for themselves. Most Democratic American survivor nations are run by Republicans/Conservative politicians. As I've done some research for some articles I've found that most are heavily Republican leaning or are home to those Conservative Democrats. Anyway I was wonder what you guys thought of this. --GOPZACK 02:30, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Well, yeah, that's pretty much it. With the urban areas gone, the rural conservatives would dominate most North American nations. Also, liberal ideas mostly center around stronger government and more expansive social policies. Post-Doomsday, almost all governments would become heavily centralized and powerful, but social programs would be disregarded, if they existed at all. The only exceptions to this would be areas like Toledo, the West Coast nations, and the northeast nations where more of the non-urban population was liberal/Democratic. Caeruleus 03:14, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
I think both of you pretty much nailed it. You also may want to consider the absence of American pop culture, which (IMO) is strongly influenced by those with a more liberal, non-religious mindset. Pop music, movies, TV, not to mention the internet....all butterflied away by Doomsday. Caeruleus I believe is accurate regarding the areas of North America TTL that would be more liberal, and I'd add Midland from Texas to that list....Midland is a place where conservatives and Baptists mix with liberals (who produce much of the art that comes out of that city). I would guess Yankovic's Republic of Lincoln would be liberal as well. Blue Ridge has a dynamic where the capital (Asheville) is more liberal, in keeping with its OTL equivalent, and the rest of the nation is more conservative. BrianD 04:17, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
A look at the county map for the US 1984 election may reflect this better than anything else. Of course,
Where the liberals were - 1984
this was the year that a very popular conservative (Reagan) won re-election, but it is the America as it was constituted (in OTL) soon after Doomsday. The blue counties are either in the urban areas or in areas where "minorities" are in the majority. It looks like Yank's Assiniboia was a hotbed of liberalism, as was the area of eastern Kentucky and West Virgina that becam his Virginian Republic. The Nebraska he transforms into a liberal utopia, though, seems to have voted for Reagan.
Interestingly, much of what Zack has as the failed "non-racist" CSA is populated by liberal voting blocks in the major cities! South Texas, with its heavy Hispanic population, votes Democratic though I doubt if they are "liberal" in the traditional sense (no irony intended). The "black belt" (original for the soil, but also came to apply to the African-Americans) in the south (AL-GA) includes Selma as well as my proposed (only on Georgia page) "New South." Toledo, indeed is liberal, as is Natchez, MS (!). I took the liberty of overlaying the US Nuclear strike map (as I had originally stored it on my computer) That map is to the right -- open it in a new tab to see the strikes (black dots). A look at the county maps for the 2000 (OTL) election gives a truer picture of the American dichotomy between urban and rural voting patterns. The population centers are shown to be the the most liberal -- and that election was a 50-50 in popular vote. SouthWriter 14:59, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't use the 1984 elections as a measure for the location of liberals and conservatives in the country. 1984 was a realignment year where almost everyone voted Republican (remember, Reagan Democrats?), so many moderates and liberals who would have normally voted Democrat voted Republican. Otherwise, you are correct. Caeruleus 16:50, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
2010 Toledo Confederation Presidential Election
So as mentioned on both the Toledo Confederation article and in the news, the Toledo Confederation is having an election. For about twenty years, the Democratic Party has had complete control over the government. Over the past few years however, their grasp has been slipping, especially after two schisms, resulting in the Labor Party and Liberal Party. Combined with the growth of the New Republicans (who are being backed by the Conservative Union, a libertarian organization, to displace the Democrats) this is a very real opportunity to end the Democratic oiligarchy. If the Democrats win, it will resecure their control and give them quite some time to regroup and attack their opponents.
The result of the election will also change how the nation is played for the forseeable future. I posted a poll on the Toledo Confederation discussion article, but it did not gather much attention. So, anyways, here is a poll. Please vote. You decide the fate of the Toledo Confederation. Minor parties have not been included in the poll for obvious reasons.
Please post any questions or comments here. Some discussion is already on the Toledo Confederation talk page. JackofSpades 02:00, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, I was out of town for about two days. Looks like the Republicans are going to win this round. I'll try to get a news update up soon. JackofSpades 18:50, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
East British expansion into Lincolnshire
I have written it down on the page. But I wanted confirmation as to whether this would be a sensible course of action. As East Britain is mostly based in Lincolnshire with some areas of Cambridgeshire and Norfolk, as well as Hull, it only seems natural for East Britain to take control of Lincolnshire. Bob 10:15, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
It could be done, but you'd need to make sure you do a good job with the locals. East Britain has only a population of 40,000, and would be incredibly thinly spread across Lincolnshire - unless you make sure the locals agree to become citizens of East Britain, you will have major issues in maximising the effectiveness of the land you've colonised. Fegaxeyl 08:44, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
I've updated it and East Britain has a population of 230000. Bob 11:07, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
That figure seems a little high to me; is it the population before or after expansion? Fegaxeyl 12:09, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
Before expansion. I altered the numbers to include populations from South Holland in Lincolnshire, Hull and the occupied Cambridgeshire areas, all reduced by a considerable margin to produce this number. Bob 18:30, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
Chumash joining the NAU
Any objections to the Chumash Republic applying for membership to the North American Union
Yes, it shares no border with an NAU member state and since the NAU is a landlocked organization it can't be connected to Chumash by the sea. I just don't think membership for Chumash is realistic. Mitro 17:32, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
So your saying that the NAU would prefer to have a nation that would fit geographically instead of one that would politically fit? Riley.Konner 14:50, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
Yes because it is factor and it cannot be ignored. It also makes sense if you look at the OTL history of various political unions, including the most famous one the European Union. Besides, what contact does Chumash have with the NAU anyway? They are seperated from each over thousands of miles, probably do not communicate at all directly and have to do so through proxies, and neither had anything the other could want at this point in time. Mitro 19:10, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
The NAU would seem like the kind of organization that would open up and help out anyone even if there is minimul contact, at least the PUSA wanting as much of the former US as possible would, and it seems in a post doomsday world and with all the nations in the NAU the factor of geographic ditribution seems to be thrown out the window. Also I think you meant to say "hundreds" not "thousands" of miles. User:Riley.Konner 03:02 September 13 2010 (UTC)
The NAU isn't a humanitarian organization. It is a political, economic and military alliance. Chumash cannot participate in their economy directly, nor could they aid them in times of war. That is why geography still counts. All the political unions of this reality follow the same plan, I don't see why the NAU would be any different. If Sierra Nevada ever joins, maybe then Chumash could consider joining, but until then its unrealistic to think that a landlocked multi-national union would be of any interest to a tiny state on the coast of California. Furthermore, Chumash could only have known about the NAU since 2009. Are they really ready to join an organization that they only knew existed for just a year? I don't think so. Mitro 23:22, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
Fine I'll scrap the idea, there was no way this was gonna end anyway. Riley.Konner 17:56 September 14 2010 (UTC)
Chechnya
Don't the Caucasus Emirate and Chechnya contradict each other?
They don't conflict. The Caucasus Emirate only controls part of Chechnya, not all of it. The rest can be controlled by the proposed Chechnya. Caeruleus 15:57, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
Considering that one has Grozny nuked but the other one has it as the capital, I'd say that they do.
Thunder Bay was supposed to hold a referendum on joining Canda, Superior or staying independent a few months ago. what would be the result of this?--HAD 18:38, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
Obviously this has been forgotten, just like the war in Saguenay and the war in Europe, just one of many problems I guess. And I think no one can speculate on the outcome other than the author, although I think that the referendum would be directly connected to the outcome of the war--Vladivostok 19:48, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
Let's take a poll so we can get it updated.
Note:My browser had a spasm and marked "Stay Independent" when I meant to mark "Merge With Canada". Arstarpool 19:04, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
Seeing as none of the options reached a 50% threshold shall we move the top two vote getters to a runoff? --GOPZACK 01:45, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan.
--Lordganon 10:12, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
Resetting the runoff poll because the "merge with Superior" option officially lost. It had seven votes, the other two had eleven.
Yankovic270 15:12, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
How the hell is Thunder Bay supposed to "Merge With Canada"? Most of Ontario is still outside of Canadian control. For God's sake the Canadians have yet to reclaim southern Quebec, let alone Ontario. I think that Thunder Bay should stay independent until at least 2020, when the Canadian province of Ontario is officially restored.
So it's a problem with Canada when they are to "merge" with Thunder Bay, but not a problem when the Virginians control eastern Virginia which was ripped to shreds by nukes. I sense hypocrisy...Arstarpool 02:48, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with Thunder Bay merging with Canada....eventually. Let's be rational here. It would be much more convenient for both parties if they held off the merging until Canada reclaims the territory between itself and Thunder Bay. Which, at this rate of expansion, is around 2020. And et tu Arstarpool? I defend the Commonwealth of California/Californian Republic and this is the thanks you give me? I try to be rational and you snap at me. All I'm saying is wait until its plausible. Which at the earliest is still ten years from now.
How about we bring back the more plausible possibility of them merging with Superior? Arstarpool 03:09, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
I had that on the original runoff poll but Yank cleared it off, in defense of Yank it varies region to region as to who joins who & such. Thunder Bay is different then Virginia & such. GOPZACK 03:12, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
You guys need to remember that while dormant, a debate is still going on as to the actual condition of Ontario after Doomsday, and how it was originally made much, much worse sounding than it actually would have been.
Also, Canada does control the Ontario coast of Hudson's Bay - and Thunder Bay is not all THAT far from there.
While it is more plausible for them to join with Superior, it would still make some sense for them to join Canada.
On another note, whoever came up with that date for Ontario in the first place was likely wrong in some regard - sure, southern would be out, but Northern Ontario, except for North Bay, would be fine to establish a minimal territory/province, on the same level as Quebec.
While they are "not all THAT far" there are no roads to create a viable connection between the two. GOPZACK 04:26, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. I think we should delay the vote until Canada actually controls the area in between itself and Thunder Bay. Until then, more practical voices will prevail over the blindly patriotic. Thunder Bay should remain independant, at least for now. I'm basically the practical person of the discussion, who noone listens to because the truth hurts. Thunder Bay can't and shouldn't rejoin Canada now. How many times to I have to say that it isn't practical at the moment?
It seems to be a tie, chaps.HAD 08:11, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
It is? I'm seeing 13-12 in favor of Canada (and I just voted in favor of Canada - however, the vote tally didn't change to reflect that). BrianD 15:23, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Never mind...the tally just changed. When are we cutting off the voting? BrianD 15:24, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea, but the vote is too close for this to be called a consensus. Also we must debate which is plausible. Yank makes a very valid point that there are no roads of use that would connect Canada's holdings along Hudson's bay with Thunder Bay. GOPZACK 06:11, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
Well, way I figure it there's gotta be a way we can combine the two - without it being something that happens in 2020.
Something along the lines of what the deal was with B.C. and the railroad when it joined Confederation?
We've been busy. We'll get to it soon. --GOPZACK 23:26, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
Two points of interest: why is it that the 1st poll putting merging with Canada in the lead and the 2nd puts Independence in the lead. And how is it that 34 people have voted! With regards to communications, surely it would be possible to establish a radio link between Thunder Bay and the rest of Canada? HAD 16:25, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
Up until basically today the numbers on the second one were reversed.
Ontario should already be a part of Canada. It was hit by 2 nukes, one to the south and one to the east along the Quebec border. All of North West Ontario would have survived. Heck, most or North Ontario would have too. Canada should control it, along with parts of Manitoba, by now.Michael Douglas 01:08, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
It's actually 3 - the Norad base at North Bay was hit too. The area was also effected by radiation from strikes in Minnesota, Michigan, and the strike on Winnipeg.
Canada actually controls the coast of Hudson's Bay, and once controlled parts of Southern Ontario, before bandits in southern Quebec cut their supply lines.
The thing is, that area of Ontario has no roads going south from the Bay. Mostly that holds the same for Manitoba as well. While they could control the area, there's just no real way to get there.
So what are we going to do, keeping all this information in mind? And I really think we need to come up with a poll that really is "one person, one vote." HAD 15:37, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Or at least reset this thing - I've seen the results switch 5 votes between the two choices a couple of times, now.
Hey guys. I was wondering if you could help me with the Alpine Confederation and something I plan to do with it. I saw what was recently done with the Greek Confederation and I would like to do the same with Alpine, making individual articles for the member states and such. If anybody would like to help me with this please comment. Arstarpool 20:24, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
I would really like to help! VENEZUELA 05:00, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
What part would you like to work on? Switzerland, Liechenstein, Austria, or the German, French, and Italy ones? Arstarpool 05:17, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
Maybe doing first a list of the states. VENEZUELA 05:20, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
Bear in mind that the Confederation doesn't have "member states". The country is divided into cantons.HAD 09:30, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Check out the list on the Alpine Confederation page. There are six five nation pages open, but just to be fair you guys should only choose one per person. Arstarpool 04:46, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
Err..... Arstar, you completely missed that its divided into cantons not states - which are the Austrian states and Swiss cantons, not Switzerland/Austria.
Freiburg hosted a corps of French troops until 1993 - its gone - so that should likely be Konstanz instead, with a larger population than what it says now.
There was a brief mention of how each of the former capitals retained autonomy, so I evolved that into the states idea. The states are the pre-Doomsday governments, but in reality its the cantons and states (Austrian) that hold more power. Actually the states barely exist anymore on a federal level. They are just there, well, to be there and to show people that their old nations haven't totally disintegrated. But, yeah, the cantons and the Austrian states hold more power. Freiburg was Xi's idea, not mine. He has a tendency to let nuked cities slide but I guess Konstanz would be better in this case. Arstarpool 16:09, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
The Konstanz one should be upped in population as well - that's the population of the area around the lake itself, and adding in the remaining areas, even with destruction, should put it well over that.
That just sounds overcomplicated - it's hard to believe any state would be set up that way. It sounds to me that the reference would be some sort of independent city districts for the two cities, not turning the nation into having a structure like this. Even if it had originally been done that way, it would more than likely have been removed by now - it's just really clumsy in structure.
Maybe have the section with the three "states" turned into something about the nations it was originally formed of, with the three articles describing the cantons within what was once their territory?
And isn't northernmost Italy actually supposed to be part of the Confederation outright?
I know it's blank on the map, but do we know anything about it? The country had hit absolute rock-bottom around 1979... so it will be interesting to see how it evolves when the rest of the world essentially drops down to its level. Benkarnell 03:07, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
According to the 1984 World Book Yearbook (covers 1983), Equatorial Guinea survived a coupe attempt in the midst of a famine in 1983. The president was Obiang N. Mbasoso, and the prime minister was Cristino Seriche. The population was about 401,000 and the trade deficit was about fifteen million dollars. The seas around the islands (widely distributed) covered rich oil fields, making the smaller islands disputed territory. The main island (about 100 miles from the mainland) was where the capital was. That island was just off the coast of Camaroon (pop. over 9 million).
I suspect that when US famine relief did not arrive in late 1983, another coupe attempt would have succeeded. Without outside aid, though, any government from an off shore island would probably not hold onto its historical lands if Camaroon or Gabon wanted them. Equatorial Guinea (which is not on the equator) would probably be absorbed by Gabon and a new nation based on the Bioko Island would be proclaimed. In OTL, Mbasoso is still president, but faced a coupe de'état led by Scotish mercenary Simon Mann in 2004. Mann was a lieutenant in the Scots Guard stationed in Northern Ireland (listed last, and he left the Guard in 1985) in 1983. Mann would go on to establish a private security company and work as a mercenary all over Africa in the late 90's and early 21st century.
President Mbasoso, though, had deposed the previous dictator only to declare himself president. And he then allowed elections in which he was the only candidate. And so on. He would probably be able to hold on to Bioko Island with not too much trouble. His good relations with the US, and to some extent with the UK over the years (up to around 2004 anyway) seems to have helped him stay in power. Without the US and UK (would new Britain help?), he may not be able to survive coupe attempts, though. SouthWriter 15:36, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
Wow, thanks. I've been reading up on the history but had not seen any mention of the famine relief or the 1984 coup attempt. The histories I had read present Obiang (it's a Spanish speaking country, so the second-to-last name is the main one :) ) as having an essentially iron-fisted rule over the country; I had imagined him cracking down even more with no more outsiders to put on a show for. That was the basis for the Abon page I started last night, anyway.
I had imagined EQG fracturing eventually as Obiang found it harder to buy arms and fuel - I had thought his brutality alone could sustain him for a while. But maybe not. Getting rid of Obiang would definitely be a Good Thing for the Equatoguineans. Though anyone able to mount a coup would probably be not much better. Another history site said that by 1980, things were already so bad that a third of the 1968 population had fled the country and Obiang's predecessor had had to resort to destroying the fishing fleet to stop people from leaving.
Maybe Abon's history was too rosy as I had written it. If its oil deposits were already known, maybe Sao Tome, Gabon, Cameroon, or somebody did indeed take it over. I still like the idea of a "village republic" emerging eventually... maybe Brazil brokered some kind of deal. I also like the idea of growing Brazilian influence in West Africa. With Brazil the new economic powerhouse, the Gulf of Guinea looks like a natural sphere of influence. It's just one move away on the Risk board! ;)
If the coup succeeded, I could see Obiang and his relatives taking over all or part of Rio Muni (the mainland), which is where they came from, leaving the coup victor in control of Bioko. Do you have a link to anything describing that coup, or is it a book you have?
Thanks again! Benkarnell 15:57, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
I recently purchased the 1984 Yearbook from a school library for a dollar. It mentioned a coupe attempt in 1983. I followed links from the Wikipedia article on Equatorial Guinea for the rest. Wikiapedia doesn't mention the 1983 attempt at all. Mann's attempt was more spectacular, though it never actually took place (it was thwarted in Zimbabwe). One aricle I just read, though, about Micó Abogo, might be worth pursuing. He is the leader of the very oppressed opposition party in EG.
I like the idea of Obiang ending up back on the continent - fewer people and possibly more vulnerable! Makes you wonder why the US supports such thugs anyway, doesn't it. With Brazil influencing the economy in TTL, I see possibilities. The Portugese were better liked than the Spanish among the islands (native languages being Portugese Creole), so the Portuguese speaking Brazilians might just be a welcome break. SouthWriter 16:33, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
You know, it just occurred to me that I have Brittanica yearbooks from 1980 to 2000 in boxes lying around my apartment. The kind of thing where I took them off somebody's hands (too good to pass by) but haven't thought about them since. What a resource! I guess I found my weekend project.
I'll try to use that info to piece together a history for EQG as a whole very soon. Benkarnell 00:25, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
Ha, so much for that weekend project. Out of a dozen boxes stacked on top of each other, I reached blindly into the first one and pulled out "Events of 1983". I just can't believe I've had this the whole time and not thought to use it! Anyway, regarding Simon Mann, I've looked up a little on him, too. It's unbelievable that people like that still actually exist. The man's a real live Bond villain. Benkarnell 03:29, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
Saguenay War
what is the status of the Saguenay War? Arstar made a reference to bringing the war to a close. It was my understanding the war had already been settled. Is this not the case? Or, has there been a retroactive change in its history, meaning it is still ongoing? --BrianD 13:21, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
It has been settled - it just needs to be modified slightly, to account for more survivors in Ontario - which still needs to be settled, truth be told.
The war is done, but like I stated on my talk page there is still so much to do. We still haven't really decided what we're going to do regarding the outcome of the war in the southern Ontario county-states. Arstarpool 03:55, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
France
Is anything actually going on in this region? Are there any plans for its future? Fegaxeyl 09:50, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
I think reunification is planned in the future, although the status of Orleans might be a problem.HAD 10:56, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
I am the "caretaker" of Orleans, I adopted the page from Yank who created the page. The monarchy of Orleans will indeed stay in place, and a solution might be the unified France might have their own monarchs per region. Thats all I can say for now.
Also as the caretaker of the Celtic Alliance, I am happy to announce that Normandy and other non-Celtic French lands will be put into a protectorate regime, as well as most of Celtic England will be put into two "Special Cultural Administrations". Normandy and Brittany, if they agree will be governed as seperate autonomous republics and will eventually be freed of control if popular votes go above 66%. This is because some of the French states, close to unification might "raise an eyebrow" at Celtic control in the area, and in the distant future that may lead to war. Arstarpool 02:34, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
That means that it might be possible to see a Cornish state be established sometime in the future.
Guys I have very good news. Me, Venezuela, Fedelede, and Katholico have recently adopted the South American Confederacion from Fero. Now, the two power blocs are under new management so hopefully we can achieve more :) Arstarpool 23:10, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
Why is SAC changing their flag? Mitro 01:38, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Why decided to change it because it saids "Argentina, Brazil and puppets because of the Brazil triangle and the Argentina sun, here is the new flag.
New Flag
Wow, actually that is pretty good. Did you make that yourself? Mitro 02:30, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
No, I just took the coat of the ALBA, which is an organization that Chavez created for his puppets, and change it to a flag. VENEZUELA 02:34, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
I'd say no then, for historical-convergence reasons. It looks like ALBA; we need the SAC. I'd be behind a change from the current SAC "frankenflag", though; but you should check with XiReney first since the original is his. Benkarnell 02:51, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
First, the article is of Fero and he let us adopt it, and second it doesn't care it's about ALBA, because even Chavez is not president in TTL. VENEZUELA 02:59, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
OK, if Fero let you make changes, then no problem. But the fact that Chavez is not in power is exactly why this shouldn't be the flag - it was designed in OTL after the point of divergence for the DD timeline. We shouldn't use any post-1983 flags because the circumstances that created them would not exist. Benkarnell 04:08, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Here, I made this one if you are going to change it. Doing a little research the Sun of May was also in the flag of Peru, and a sun with a face is also in Ecuador's flag, and many south american flag concepts contain it, so I don't see it representing Argentina. The bands are the colors of the south american flags, and the nine stars represent the nine member states. Use it or not, I was just throwing it out there.Oerwinde 09:12, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Possible SAC flag.
Oo, I really like that. What if the face were removed from the sun to remove any lingering thought that the flag was for Argentina only? Benkarnell 14:15, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
The Sun of May is derived from the symbol for Inti, the Inca god of the sun and represents the may revolution in Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Bolivia, and was the first flag flown in declaration of Peru's independence. I see it as a symbol of South American independence. Removing the face would just make it a sun in splendour, which is a symbol in European heraldry rather than a South American symbol.Oerwinde 16:27, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
First of all. Chavez is not president, but the designer of the SAC flag could exist, and I think we will use the one of the colors for the Pan-American District. VENEZUELA 14:22, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the ALBA coat of arms, and the ALBA membership, I can see how the creator of the flag was influenced by the placement of the membership centered in Venezuela. Here is the way I see it being designed:
Pictured here are the member nations of Chavez' ALBA
Here is the symbol for ALBA, notably reaching out from a center nation (Venezuela).
It's pretty clear to me what the designer had in mind.
However, with a little alteration, the symbol could also represent a South American union (even bringing in the Islas Malvinas!)
So, it appears if the same designer works on a flag to represent all of South America, he could indeed come up with the same sun radiating out from the center of the continent! Of course, it was the "brain child" of Hugo Chevez, so he may have had a lot to say about approving it in OTL. All in all, though, it is quite feasable. SouthWriter 17:38, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
The Sun is located in the state of Matto Grosso or in the Brazilian-Paraguay frontier NOT in Venezuela.VENEZUELA 17:58, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
That's exactly what the TTL version shows! The reference to Venezuela was concerning the OTL version. I was defending your design, Vene, so go with it. The only thing you need to do now is find a connection between the designer of the flag and TTL. I'm sure the graphic designer could have similar insight in TTL. SouthWriter 19:41, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
I still don't understand. The SAC is a completely different organization with a completely different purpose, history, and circumstances from the ALBA. Why would you want to just transfer the flag over? It doesn't make sense. The West African Union doesn't use the AU flag. And so on. Benkarnell 19:09, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Well, Ben, I set out to disprove the notion of this symbol being used without the connection with ABLA, and the design practically hit me in the face. Starting with a sun (symbol of South American independence), and placing it in the center of the continent, this is what you get. Why would Sudamericanos and Africans not chose similar or even identical flags compared to the ones that arose in OTL? All you have to have is some of the same people in similar situations and voila - similar or, coincidently, identical designs. It makes sense unless you are the one designing flags for new countries and organizations. :-) SouthWriter 19:41, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
My question is, why would you, creatively speaking? When you have a blank slate to design a flag, why would you just pluck one from some arbitrary corner of real life? Benkarnell 03:32, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
As caretaker of Brazil, I must say that this is a very good flag.HAD 19:49, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
So decided this is the new flag? VENEZUELA 20:01, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
How about we do what we always do when we choose new flags: leave it up to a vote? Mitro 20:25, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, add the poll. VENEZUELA 20:30, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
I'd also argue that even if you use the Chavez flag, it would be better to retcon it than to have a news article where it changes. Especially since the old one is agreed to be inappropriate (too Brazilian) and there's no real reason to change now in 2010, I'd say just say that the Chavez flag has always been the flag of the SAC. Benkarnell 13:04, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
I'll try again :). No matter what flag you choose, I think the news article you posted was unnecessary. I don't think the SAC changed its flag in 2010 - I think this has just always been its flag. Benkarnell 14:42, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
Expanding Essex
When I first put Essex I had it controlling all of Hertfordshire. That was removed; but now I'd like for Essex to regain physical control over the area, starting with annexing the portion of Hertfordshire to the east of the A1 in the next month or so, following with a complete annexation next year, along with the possible colonisation of north Kent. Does anyone have an issue with this degree of growth? Fegaxeyl 17:11, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
United kingdom restoration
I was reading about the provincial USA so I had an idea about doing the same in Britain i have figured out the territory that could be used its going to be a an initiative by the Kingdom of Shropshire --Owen1983 18:12, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
Why would this be the case. What basis does Shropshire have to re-establish the UK?HAD 08:09, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
Not only that, but the Kingdom of Shropshire is now obselete.HAD 08:28, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
It seems sort of hokey to do both so close to each other, but in theory it would be fairly easy to re-establish the UK as a sort of confederation that revives some of the traditions of the monarchy and the Parliament. As more of Britain gets explored by the outside, world communication comtinues to improve, and the English and Scots start to realize they're slowly getting colonized by the Irish, I would expect some sort of revived UK (even if in name only) to be not too far off in the future. Benkarnell 13:53, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
We've already got something like that. Something a lot like that. The OBN. Though yes, I can see (with the wave of pro-British sentiment in post-DD Britain) that a UK might be reestablished - though that would require the marriage of the Cleveland-Northumbrian and East British thrones. Otherwise, though, the basic foundations of this confederation are already in place, as is the motivation for closer integration - and the people who want to see it happen. Fegaxeyl 14:54, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there is the OBN. But even without dynastic acrobatics, I could see the petty monarchs in Btitain acknowledging Andrew of Windsor as a sort of suzerain-king. Enfeoffment actually works rather well in a postapocalyptic environment; I'm actually surprised we don't see more of it! Benkarnell 15:11, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
Wait... you're suggesting that the nations of the OBN would offer pledges of allegiance and military support to King Andrew in return for resources? (If I understand enfeoffment and suzerainity.) That's... both plausible and cool!
I quite like this idea, I had a news item regarding an upswing in suport for the monarchy in Southern England and although i considered a system like Victoria has this might work and would allow Southern England to be more independent from the Celtic AllianceVegas adict 21:12, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
It could be a federal type thing. Uniting as a single nation in federation, with each individual state keeping its monarch, with Andrew being the king of the federation, or High King or something.Oerwinde 09:29, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think King Andrew would be a popular choice because he left the UK to fend for itself. in her hour of need --Owen1983 15:35, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
Japan
Hello! Does anyone have any information on the status of Japan and whether or not it has caretakers? I would like to do some work with Japan, the Ryukyu Islands, in particular. I disagree with the idea that the Ryukyuans, following the strikes against mainland Japan, wouldn't jump at the chance to secede from the mainland. There has always been a strong sentiment for independence in Ryukyuan culture, which notably becomes more and more popular when military issues are raised. Considering the massive military and political issues raised by something as heavy-handed as worldwide nuclear conflict, widespread destruction in Japan, and the reversion to traditional, militaristic ways in Japan would cause a massive upsurge of sentiment for Ryukyuan independence, enough for a successful secession. Even in our world, where no such issues exist, more than half of the Okinawan and Ryukyuan population has been reported to favor independence from Japan. In the late seventies, the Ryukyu Independent Party was gaining steam and pushing for seperation from Japan in any way they could manage. Thoughts, objections, assistance? Back Alley Hero 02:06, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
Actually Japan is one of those articles that never had an official caretaker as far as I can tell. Most of the work was done by an anon, but it was refined by the community as a whole. So it is open for adoption i guess. Mitro 02:36, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
Welcome Back Alley Hero! I'm working on the Ogasawaran islands at this current time so I would be happy to help. Some articles state that many of the islands, such as Ogasawara were on the verge of collapse after Doomsday. I don't think there would be any objections on becoming the new caretaker. You should contact Brian too, since he caretakes Hawaii which in this timeline has been in several discussions with the Japanese government on the Ogasawaran islands. I was going to write up a page on Okinawa today actually but I didn't get around to it. Arstar[talk] 02:44, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
Benkarnell would be more helpful regarding Ogasawara, as he came up with the scenario and developed it. Back Alley Hero, if you want to work on Japan I definitely encourage you to do so! --BrianD 02:48, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
Ya, I forgot about Ben! Yes Ben definitely came up with the scenario so he should get most of the credit. I just made the page about Ogasawara and hope to finish it sometime soon. Anyways what do you have in mind for Japan? Arstar[talk] 03:04, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
On another note, having the Ryukyuans become independent, while a nice idea, may not be so feasible - Okinawa itself would likely have had a strike on the US base, eliminating much of the island. The other islands in the chain don't seem to have very much population at all, either.
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 would love to be the caretaker to do that. Anyone have questions, comments, objections? --Back Alley Hero 15:17, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with doing a serious rework as long as the basics are kept. The main islands unified by modern day, Imperial government re-established in Kyoto, return to traditional Japanese values. I think a limited enforced isolationism is something plausible, to ensure interior problems are dealt with before inviting the problems of the outside, but a modern Japan despite a return to tradition would realize they were much stronger economically when they were a part of the global economy and open themselves up.
As an aside, I think some people put too much stress on the damage EMP would do. It only damages active electronics, anything that was turned off at the time of the pulse would be fine, and a lot of older technology would still work fine. Communications wouldn't be as efficient, but it would be very possible.--Oerwinde 08:21, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
Lincoln
There has been some renewed discussion as to whether the Republic of Lincoln would rejoin the "new" USA. Yank contends: "I have to say that there is absolutely no chance of Lincoln rejoining the new United States. While my Virginian republic is louder in its nationalism, it is still equally unlikely that Lincoln would rejoin the new US. They originally were a “placeholder” government for former Nebraska, but over time they became more and more disillusioned about the return of the US. They are likely to have a jaded outlook on the new United States, as they would figure it has zero chance of ever returning to even a semblance of the glory of pre-DD America."
I have to say I respectfully disagree with the plausibility of this argument and I I'm wondering what the community thinks. --Zack 23:08, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
The nationalism argument is quite frankly ridiculous. If Ireland held on to its national identity for hundreds of years, I would think Americans would hold on a little longer than 25. Virginia and its propaganda machine is different, as is states made up of both Canadian and American territory, where the division in the population would likely make rejoining either Canada or the US unlikely due to pressures from either side. Chumash would likely remain independent due largely to the fact that being predominantly native, and the treatment of natives in the US history would make their own nation appealing. States with governments that aren't in line with the US line of thinking likely would remain independent as well. Other than that, I realistically see most survivor states rejoining either Canada or the US in time.Oerwinde 00:14, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
What I don't get is why do all of Yank's articles minus a few exceptions protest rejoining the United States (or Canada)? Is it because you want these nations to remain their independence because you feel that they cannot be unique and well-detailed or respected as articles on US States? Or do you think that it'll be more fun playing independent nations on the "chess board" of 1983: Doomsday? All my American nations minus Niagara Falls or maybe Superior or Plymouth would join a renewed United States if "the border was right next to them". I have it in my mental constitution of Niagara Falls that "the city will never divide or lose their sovereignity". But they're the exception. What you guys don't get, this goes out to the Canadians with American nations, is that' we do 'have nationalism, on par or maybe even greater than yours. My family has been firing a gun in the name of America since my ancestors fought for the Confederates in the Civil War. We then fought in the Spanish-American War, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and distant relatives in Iraq during both wars. That's what, 6 or 7 wars? In the name of America? During 1983 my father was in Fort Knox, a young Private ready to continue the family legacy. If he was with the 101st Airborne on Doomsday, does that mean by now he would be shouting "f--k America! Long Live Virginia!"? No...but what I find strange is why the capital of Lincoln, Nebraska, a US state for quite a while would just outright refuse to join the closest thing to the original America out there. Its full of Americans, the same ones in Torrington, Wyoming or Grand Junction, Colorado. Does that mean that since a generation has passed they would refuse to join a new United States simply because they grew up "Linconites"? Why would their vision be "dissilousioned"? My father's generation would be in their 40s and 50s. So why would they protest rejoining the nation that in reality only disbanded for like a decade? If the new United States' government showed up with their finest troops and surrounded the city of Lincoln would the population of my fathers generation, or even SouthWriters generation, or even the youngest generation die in the name of Lincoln? What is in the name of Lincoln? Lakota? Chumash? Virginia? I could understand Lakota and Chumash rejecting to join a new United States but what about Sierra Nevada or Utah? If anything they could glorify their city even more as a member of a new United States. They would have resources, federal support, and every other thing.
But why would they so deeply reject joining a nation that would just make them stronger? Arstar[talk] 02:44, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
I'll agree that there is a certain ... consistency ... when it comes to the political attitudes of Yankovic's articles. But there's also the whole "nuclear war" thing. Living through the official Worst Thing Ever to Happen would certainly change one's political views on a lot of things. Some of the surviving communities certainly would adopt a bunker mentality: a new USA might sound good in theory, but in practice it's unacceptable because it involves All of Them Out There.
And what do you mean the finest US troops? What US troops? Benkarnell 04:02, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure that the new United States has troops...do I really have to go into detail, it was a metaphor :(
But yeah, no offense Yank, but your articles, especially your "brainchild" Virginia is a direct copy of your political views. And about the bunker mentality, whos All of Them Out There? Outsiders? Arstar[talk] 04:13, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
Certainly is a consistency in Yanks articles, I've noted that before & I'm sure I wasn't the first. Arstar points out correctly that they do have a blend of Yank's political views mixed in there. If any thing that's the No Cross No Crown stuff we should care about not the debate on blogs or talk pages, especially in a collaborative TL like this. It is Lincoln however that a truly don't understand. They are middle America, the patriotic heartland as some would call it. They would jump at the chance to return to the US. I could see hope dwindling in the 90's but once they discovered the USA was still alive & kicking they'd join or express interest in joining in a heartbeat. --Zack 04:47, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, we all do that with our views in our articles to a certain extent.
In most of the continents, this is fairly simple. But I was thinking the other day - what would the ten largest cities in North America (not including Mexico, mind) and Europe atl be? Been a bit intrigued about it, so I figured I'd see what you guys think. Thoughts?
Of course this is all based on current non-Doomsday figure, so it is possible that these might off. Any city in the northern hemisphere on Doomsday is going to suffer, even the small ones. Supplying them is going to be a horrid. Mitro 14:57, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
Also, when you leave Mexico from the North American cities, does that include Central America, Cuba and the other islands? Mitro 14:59, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
Should have said that too - having those in there would fill the list with cities from those places.Lordganon 20:56, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
Not in any particular order:
Manchester, VT
Midland-Odessa, (W)TX
Lexington, KY
Fort Collins, USA
Victoria, VICTORIA
Marquette, SUPERIOR
St. John's, CA
Saskatoon, CA (NAU)
Toledo, TOLEDO CONFEDERATION
Asheville, BLUE RIDGE
This isn't meant to be a comprehensive list, merely a list to help jumpstart the conversation.--BrianD 18:04, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
I should have known Brian would beat me to the post! Anyway, what follows is my musing so far:
I would say that the list should be of "Largest Surviving Cities of North America" and likewise in Europe. If the nation was not under attack, then it would not have "Surviving" cities. Going over the list of the 50 largest cities in the US for 1983, only Toledo, Ohio, survived without a strike. That makes it the largest city in the US (and probably larger than any city left in Canada). Based on the excellent new article by Brian, Lexington, Kentucky, would probably be number two. Other contenders can probably be found in West Texas and the United States.
So far, then, my list starts with two, with more to be determined:
Toledo, Federal District, Toledo Confederation
Lexington, Commonwealth of Kentucky
I'll check Brian's list for population estimates later to see how they stack up. [Wondering out loud whether Greenville, Piedmont makes the top ten] SouthWriter 18:35, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, London and Kitchen-Waterloo in Ontario would likely be included on such a list. Lordganon 20:56, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
The one problem with Lexington is that the Kentucky article says that it's not their largest city (a typo, I assume)
Hunting around a little, I suspect that the top ten in Canada and the former USA would be from these (in no real order):
Lexington, Kentucky
Fort Collins, USA
Toledo, Toledo Confederation
St. John's, Canada
London, LondonOnt
Kitchener, Waterloo Cooperative
St. Catharines, Niagara Falls
Greenville, Piedmont
Saskatoon, Provisional Canada
Lincoln, Lincoln
Midland/Odessa, West Texas
Reno-Sparks, Sierra-Nevada
Victoria, Victoria
Billings, USA
Charleston, Virginia
As for Europe, something from these, in my mind (again, no order):
Good evening, Gentlemen, here is the North American list, sorted by our time line urban areas (or "metro" where urban wasn't listed). All figures from Wikipedia, estimated to possible TTL levels (most a little short of OTL figures):
Toledo - 500,000
Kitchener - 420,000
London - 350,000
Victoria - 330,000
St. Catherines - 305,000
Greenville - 302,000
Lincoln - 290,000
Reno-Sparks - 285,000
Midland-Odessa - 265,000
Lexington - 260,000
Saskatoon - 223,000
Ashville - 221,000
Charleston - 210,000
Billiings - 155,000
St. Johns - 150,000
Ft. Collins - 130,000
As you can see, I marked the former US cities in bold. And look at that -- Greenville is the second "American" City on the list! The "Canadian" cities held four of the top five spots, though. With that, gentlemen, I will bid you all a good night (or morning, as the case may be). SouthWriter 05:42, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Very nice, south. You do do great work, lol.
That being said, two things: the Kitchener figure you list is the metro area, which as the Kitchener-Waterloo metro, consists of 3 cities which would be counted independently(as listed on the Waterloo article), and with Niagara Falls and Superior, the cities of Niagara Falls NY/ONT and Sault Ste. Marie MI/ONT would no longer be two separate cities on both sides of the border, but a single city in both cases (I don't know if this would make a difference, but it may)
For consistency, I used the urban figures of the selected cities. I did not think to look for others. Below is a chart of the selected cities, including Niagra Falls and Sault Ste Marie. Provided are the actual figures from the Wikia articles which may or may not reflect actual populations in TTL in the present day.
Largest Survivor Cities in North America
City
State
City pop.
Urban pop.
Metro pop.
Toledo
Toledo
Confederation
316,179 (3)
503,008
672,220 (2)
Kitchener
Kitchener
204,668 (6)
422,514
451,235 (6)
London
London
352,395 (1)
353,069
457,720 (4)
Victoria
Victoria
75,390 (14)
330,088 (10)
St. Catherine's
Niagra Falls
131,989 (10)
308,596
390,317 (9)
Niagra Falls
Niagra Falls
137,780 (9)
1,145,900
1,312,600 (1)
Greenville
Piedmont
61,782 (16)
302,194
639,617 (3)
Lincoln
Republic of Lincoln
251,624 (5)
292,219 (12)
Reno-Sparks
Sierra Nevada Union
350,050 (2)
419,261 (7)
Midland-Odessa
West Texas
199,631 (7)
266,941 (13)
Lexington
Kentucky
260,994 (4)
296,545
453,424 (5)
Saskatoon
Provisional Canada
223,200 (6)
257,300 (14)
Ashville
Blue Ridge
74,543.(15)
221,570
408,436 (8)
Charleston
Virginia
50,267 (17)
212,991
309,635 (11)
Billings
Montana, USA
105,845 (11)
155,000 (16)
St. John's
Canada
100,646 (12)
151,322
181,113 (15)
Ft. Collins
Colorado, USA
138,736 (8)
(17)
Sault St. Marie
Superior
91,490 (13)
(18)
Using this chart, you can see that the "largest cities" can be arranged according to how you describe "city." Sometimes the city and county will combine creating a "metro" smaller than the "urban." But if we go just by the city limits as described in city charters, and include the dual cities as listed (including the 'international' cities, the top ten will be:
London
Reno-Sparks
Toledo
Lexington
Lincoln
Saskatoon
Midland-Odessa
Ft. Collins
Niagra Falls
St. Catherine's
I like the "metro" list - Greenville comes out at number 3 (but with a present day population bigger than I give all of Piedmont). In the metro list, Niagra Falls comes out far on top, but that might include St. Catherine's (the city of Buffalo has been completely removed, though). I'll let the chart speak. Perhaps it will show up on the main page (I vote for the cities arranged by "metro" population). SouthWriter 20:56, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
I figure some cross between the three is most likely. and my bad for the Niagara Falls/Sault. Ste. Marie bit - I had assumed that they wouldn't register, but when you made that list I changed my mind, lol. I'll look into another tomorrow.
My thoughts on Europe, with some city population estimates:
Berlin, Prussia: 1,000,000 plus is likely.
Stockholm, Sweden: 840,000
Dublin, Celtic Alliance: 830,000
Zagreb, Croatia: 775,000
Palermo, Sicily: 655,000
Helsinki, Finland: 585,000
Skopje, Macedonia: 550,000
Gothenburg, Sweden: 510,000
Pristina, Serbia: 495,000
Genoa, Genoa: 490,000
Zurich, Alpine Confederation: 430,000
Cluj-Napoca, Transylvania: 380,000
Moglev, Belarus: 350,000
Poznan, West Poland: 310,000
Malmo, Sweden: 295,000
Kinda odd with the Alpine populations, but most are in smaller (~100,000 at most) cities, not the bigger ones. Meh.
After a bit of hunting about, my guess at the largest cities in the former USA and Canada:
Toledo, Toledo Confederation: 430,000
London, London ONT: 315,000
Victoria, Victoria: 305,000
Lincoln, Republic of Lincoln: 290,000
Midland-Odessa, West Texas: 255,000
Lexington, Kentucky: 245,000
Saskatoon, Provisional Canada: 225,000
Charleston, Virginia: 220,000
St. Catherines, Niagara Falls: 215,000
Ashville, Blue Ridge: 210,000
Kitchener, Waterloo: 200,000
Niagara Falls, Niagara Falls: 190,000
St. Johns, Canada: 160,000
Reno-Sparks, Sierra Nevada: 150,000
Fort Collins, USA: 145,000
Billings, USA: 135,000
Greenville, Piedmont Republic: 120,000
Waterloo, Waterloo: 115,000
Manchester, Vermont: 105,000
Sault St. Marie, Superior: 100,000
Even taking out the population of Buffalo proper, the Niagara metropolitan area otl is still mostly its suburbs. The St.Catherine metro area otl includes Niagara falls and Welland, whereas here it doesn't. Adjusted several of these to keep the same population ratios even with the smaller national populations quoted in their articles. Gave Waterloo and Kitchener what their populations for more likely be too - the old Kitchener population was both combined with a couple of other cities.
Good work, LG. You beat me to it, and I agree to the adjustments based on the articles. I set my own town of Greenville up for demotion based on Piedmont's given population, but see how post-doomsday conditions would give the "city" a larger population (based on annexation of much of the county, etc.) I had left Manchester off my chart (my apologies to Brian) because my research was faulty. I looked up Manchester, Vermont (US state OTL) and failed to realize the larger city in the absorbed state of New Hampshire! All I had to do is read the Republic of Vermont article, huh?? :-/
Anyway, I will put an article up with a modified chart and Intro to the largest "survivor cities" of North America. I'll let LG work on getting a similar article up for Europe since I know almost nothing about how Europe might have fared. SouthWriter 18:39, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
Will do.
Sun (of all people, lol) got me thinking a bit. I did miss a few cities in that (not that they would be in the top ten, lol - biggest one is at 16) and overinflated London, lol (forgot about Sarnia being in that nation). A revised list (so much for "ten" lol):
I would like to expand the Antarctica article. Given that it received no direct nuclear strikes, research stations were generally well-stocked and manned with highly competent individuals from both the civilian and military population, and was frequented by fishing crews, many of which established temporary habitations on the mainland in the northwest (especially prior to the 1990s), it strikes me as possible that an extremely small population could survive, if only barely, in Antarctica, especially around the Weddell or Ross Sea, especially considering that the Antarctic Treaties banning exploitation of the relatively abundant resources (in terms of minerals and fauna) would be disregarded by survivors.
The history, as well, could do with an expansion, in line with a more detailed examination of the survivors. Even if you disagree with me about the viability of survivors in Antarctica, I think we could agree that the article wouldn't be hurt by an expansion of it's history and the fates of the survivors. Of course, all of these changes and expansions would strive to ultimately respect pre-existing canon.
Thoughts, questions, comments, concerns? Excited to work with you all. Southern Sea 00:39, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
This really should have only been left in one of the two locations. I left notes for you on the Antarctica page. Lordganon 00:54, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
South Atlantic islands
I've written a proposal for a revised Tristan da Cunha page, and in the process I feel like I've uncovered a story. We know that Argentina took over the Falklands right away; it certainly didn't need any extra incentive. We also know that in the mid-90s New Britain took control of the UK's other South Atlantic islands (the former Overseas Territory of St. Helena and Dependencies, now St. Helena, Ascension, and Tristan da Cunha). Finally, we know that around the 2000s South American nations became more active in coastal Africa, most apparent in Ambô and the RZA. At some point, South Americans must have discussed making a grab for the three New British islands. They are in somewhat strategic locations on the way to Africa, and NB probably could not defend them it came to an outright attack. I think it's safe to assume that no South American ever did make a grab for those islands, and it would be interesting to find out why, and learn the full story. Benkarnell 04:03, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
Considering all things, I suspect we could say the ANZC would be the reason. But, at the same time, no South American nation has ever laid claim to those islands - it's the Falklands and South Georgia that they have laid claim to.
Ascension Island also held/holds a British airbase, which given the recent Falklands conflict in 1983, would quite possibly have been targeted.
Then too, the islands really have no use other than location. No point fighting over rocks.
Economically, the Falklands aren't anything to write home about, either, but I see what you're saying about past claims. No, I don't see war breaking out, but I am interested in the possibility of a standoff between them. The course of New Britain's international relations over the last 10 years are a little confusing to me, which is why I wanted to discuss the idea here.
Looking into Ascension, the island was the terminus of the Atlantic Missile Range, a very important tracking station as well as a US-operated airbase. So I think it was a very likely Sovet target. This probably means that the "colony" there now consists of a flag and little else. Benkarnell 19:51, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
The Unification of Binghamton and Ithaca
Arstar has suggested that Binghamton and Ithaca be united into a single nation. What I want to know is wether or not you people think that the two states should be united.
Yank has also suggested that the tentative Republic of New York than go on to annex the other nearest counties. However, I disagree, thinking its time we start building nations on natural boundaries like rivers and lakes rather than obsolete lines. What do you guys think? Arstar 19:22, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to have the Republic use old county lines because it is easier to use old county maps than to mark out territory on geographic maps of the area. How about we collaborate once again on this article Arstar?
--Yank 21:43, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
Fine by me. But do you guys have any other name ideas in mind besides the Republic of New York? Arstar 04:26, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
While I do like Yanks idea involving the Finger Lakes, that only really would be applicable for Ithaca, not Binghamton (those lakes are nw/north of Ithaca), not matter what the general region may be called by the Department of Economic Development. What makes it worse is that they both are in separate geological regions (Ithaca area flows to the great lakes, Binghamton area flows to the ocean). If it helps, however I did find that some of the locals in Tompkins County (Ithaca, for all purposes) consider themselves as part of the "Southern Tier" of New York, which Binghamton is definitely part of. There's not even a mountain range to work with here, lol.
I already know about the "Southern Tier", and I have already nixed it as a potential name for the new nation. No matter how many times I swish that name through my head it just doesn't sound right, it doesn't feel right. No, "Southern Tier" doesn't sound right to me.
--Yank 03:19, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
How about we pick a small town that would be where the signing of the unification/new government took place, like Germany's Weimar Republic? Arstar 05:04, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
Never said it was a good idea, Yank. And remember, Calm is good!
Maybe the name of the county between them, or even some sort of combination of Ithaca and Binghamton into one name? (ex: Ithton, etc. (I know that one is bad, but its an example!))
Since it's effectively been decided to go ahead with uniting, what should the new nation be named? Any other suggestions (within reason) are welcomed.
South Central Republic? Republic of South York? Remainder Republic of New York? The United Cities of New York? A few thoughts. Southern Sea 00:39, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Double-S! Now I have to recalibrate the poll. Speaking of New York, I want a helper in assisting the fleshing out of this nation. The History is pathetically limited and many parts are empty.
--Yank 03:55, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
Republic of New York won. Mitro 15:46, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
East Britain name change
I have decided that East Britain is going to alter into a new sovereign state that will be proud of its Lincolnshire identity rather than its British one. I can't decide wat to call the new nation, or its flag. So just post your ideas below, and we'll have a vote after a couple of weeks. Mumby 13:38, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
Well, Lincolnshire was originally the Kingdom of Lindsey, or Linnuis. So thats a possibility. Though I think it mostly consisted of northern Lincolnshire...Oerwinde 19:25, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
There was also the Corieltauvi tribe (also known as the Coritani) who inhabited Lincolnshire and central England in Roman times. However, adopting this Celtic image may create unwanted association with the Celtic Alliance. Fegaxeyl 19:35, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
You could also just go with... England.Oerwinde 20:17, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, Lindsey was further north than this.
Around half of the territory East Britain started with was in the lands of the Corieltauvi - and most of their expansion is in the area.
The area was under the Middle Angles, the main group in the region, for a while, so maybe Anglia? It was also part of the Kingdom of Mercia, so that could work too - part of the starting area and the expansion were in its core territories, and the rest of the starting area was part of it later on.
England could also work as a name. Heck, you could just call it the Kingdom of Lincolnshire too, lol.
Personally, I like Anglia and Mercia. There's quite a lot of nations named after their original towns and counties and whatnot. That makes logical sense, of course, but it does start to hurt the brain after a while. A return to the more local, ancient roots of Britain would be interesting. Southern Sea 17:51, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
You could alway use the name Southumbria, the peoples occuping north Mercia were called Southumbrians and there is evidence that it was a seperate Sub-kingdom in 702AD--Smoggy80 14:15, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
I like the sound of Southumbria, its an interesting mirror to Northumbria. Its different and unique and actually stirs something in my red, white and blue soul. I'm thinking it'll officially called the New Kingdom of Southumbria, but will also be known as New Southumbria. Hows that? Mumby 18:09, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
While there was some sort of Mercian sub-kingdom called Southumbria, there's really not too much known about it. By the sounds of things, it was more so like a Duchy or something under a Kingdom. Just plain old Southembria would likely be a much better name. Lordganon 09:10, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
Wasn't this article already renamed before? Mitro 14:12, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but he didn't talk about it at all first, and it was a name change that none agreed with, either. Was revered within a couple hours at the time Lordganon 14:33, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
Lybia
I was wondering what happened to Qadaffi's Lybia. He's in the new today, but I don't see him anywhere in the time line of Africa. He would not have been bombed by the US in 1986, but he would not have been friendly with Siberia by the time the USSR regrouped. Was he overthrown, or what? SouthWriter 21:13, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
There is a proposal on Libya, but most of the canon information on the country can be found in Cyrenaica (1983: Doomsday) and Chad-Libya War (1983: Doomsday). [EDIT] More research suggests that Libya no longer exists. The country is either part of Greece, Egypt or divided among the Berber tribes. Mitro 21:42, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
East Britain is going to become the Kingdom of Newholland, after the local name for southern Lincolnshire. Is this alright with the community? The poeple will be called Newhollanders or Newhollandish not Newdutch, don't worry. Mumby 16:47, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
Is this going to be a present day change, or does it go back to the founding of the nation? Either way, it is alright with me. The nation has been your project all along, but if the change is foundational, a lot of changes will have to be made in all the articles up to this point. SouthWriter 03:05, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
It really sounds much too..... unwieldy for a name of a nation. And it's not like your population is from that area anyways, for the most part, so I find it doubtful that they'd like it. Though, I guess I'm alright with it, despite my dislike of it, so long as you introduce it now and not try to backdate it. Lordganon 06:14, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
I agree it sounds bit unwieldy. I don't have a problem with it, but something tells me the name will get contracted by locals for ease of speech. At least in southeast Britain, with the good old Estuary accent, your country will probably be known as 'Newolland' or possibly even contracted to 'New'land' or 'Olland'. Fegaxeyl 07:12, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry about backdating. East Britain is becoming Newholland as part of its 'deprovisionalisation'. They turned from a Provisional Government to a Kingdom, now they are pursuing a new national identity. And most people in the area refer to where we live as New Holland. And in nearby Spalding, a lot of the architecture looks Dutch. We even have an annual Tulip festival. Though altering the name to Newolland might be better. Explain it off as corruption of the language post-DD. If there are no more issues, am I good to go ahead? Mumby 08:57, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
If you use Newolland, and make sure it would sounds different pronounced than "New Holland," I guess it's ok. Lordganon 13:59, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
Siberian expansion idea
Ok so, I've recently started to tie up some loose ends with the USSR, as I left rather abruptly. One of them was that the Ural Territory is officially part of the RSFSR and the Kazakh SSR. The second was that the GLONASS network's third stage of launches commenced. But now comes the part I started today: A possible expansion of the USSR.
Now, I was thinking of it perhaps being towards Soviet Karelia, after their recent official decision to join the USSR, however, I thought I'd ask you guys what you think.
Furthermore, I'm considering two optional ways to go that aren't necessarily connected to Europe, the ADC and greater tensions with the global community: A complete annexation of Manchuria (smaller distance to said target, however, more hostility in the form of Imperial China and political fallout) or an annexation of a large part of the remaining Kazakh SSR towards Aralia and annexation of said region (larger distance than the former two, a lot of hostility in the area, not as much political fallout in the global community).--Vladivostok 18:14, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
Some towards SK, given its desires, along with SK itself, would make sense.
I'd do the expansion in Kaz~ myself. Makes more sense in line with other recent developments.
Now that there's been an official declaration of war by the Alliance and Southern England against Ur Alba, and there's been a naval battle between the Alliance and Ur Alba, should we add the war to the official 1983:DD list of Wars? MAINEiac4434 23:54, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
So long as no one objects to the war's plausibility. --Zack 00:03, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
I'll wait a few days to see if ther are any objections before adding, then. MAINEiac4434 00:11, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
Way I figure it, this is Smoggy's baby, so if anyone should do it - espcailly while it is still ongoing and we know nothing about when it is planned - she should. We can worry about adding it after it's done. Lordganon 10:28, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
If no one objects i'll added it to the wars page once its all done and dusted, which shouldn't be long--Smoggy80 11:05, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
Wars all finished i've added it to the wars page and created a page The Ur Alba War for it.--Smoggy80 17:39, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
South Africa
I have to admit that I'm confused as to the exact relationship regarding the post-DD South Africa, RZA and New Britain. I think we need to review and clarify what their borders are, what they ARE (especially in the case of RZA) and how they relate to one another. There seems to be overlap and contradiction between the various articles. We need to clarify who controls Cape Town, what happened to Pretoria and Johannesburg, what exactly IS the RZA and what role did South America and the Commonwealth play in its creation. And, I'm sure, a number of other things.BrianD 21:12, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
Well, the "Republic of the Cape" stuff needs to be changed slightly to be a "defunct" nation, for sure. Past that, all we really need to do is make the maps show the same things, and decide on the fate of the two cities. My guess would be that they're just warlord territory now. My opinion on the RZA and New Britian are that they're more or less fine as they are.
Expanding these articles would go a long way too, as many are just stubs. Heck, there's even one that was made obsolete for some reason, despite it being mentioned as a state in several articles and maps for the region.
South Africa's been a mess for a while because there hasn't yet been a coherent history written for the region. The RZA represents some very early XiReney content that likely needs some polishing. Moreover it was written in 2008 and, since it's a transitional government, it may be out of date w.r.t. the 83-Doomsday world. Lots can change in 3 years. New Britain was largely written as a self-contained project; the supporting "characters" in its story have always been very hazy images just beyond its borders. The "New Union of South Africa" took shape very gradually, without a single author to give it coherence.
Central, northern, and western South Africa remain much more a mystery. KwaXhosa exists mostly as a shadowy foil for New Britain. KwaZulu has a page, but it's sketchy. Not even any mention of the IFP, for example.
There have been assumptions that some of the 1980s-era Bantustans persisted and expanded into neighboring territory. An old idea called the Azanian League was, I think, an alliance of bantustan governments and various interests in the Rand. I think it was to be the power that controlled the two cities. I wouldn't mind seeing that revived... but anything's possible at this point. Benkarnell 13:00, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I seem to recall that you're right there, Ben. Vegas actually just made a proposal for something in the region, though it is a touch..... implausible.
We really need a few people to have a look-see over these articles to make them match each other.
The original content was only a single phrase with Johannesburg being the remainder of the RZA backed up by a small SAC/ANZC military mission (likely the very first post/DD @peacekeeping mission). I dont rmember if it was even before me adopting or If I mentioned this in the very beginning (when I was putting things without real background research rather then simply inventing various things to "dot" the world map)... So this REALLY needs some deeper repolishing and update...Xi'Reney 10:01, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
Putting it up here for the purpose of changing the capital. The written capital was Macau, but that did not appear well-researched. As I continued to work more on figuring out the situation there, I found that being so near the coastline, there would be a high chance of contamination.
The fires and destruction in Guangzhou would have caused factories' chemicals to combust and flow into the river. This would include medical chemicals, industrial chemicals, gasoline, fertilizers, you name it. Considering at the time China was using a lot more hazardous chemicals than now, the dangers would be immense.
If the capital was along the ocean, and mostly surrounded by ocean, there is a high risk that government members would become contaminated from coming in contact with the beach, taking a bridge over the beach, breathing near the beach, etc. I mean, for Pete's sake this is an island attached to a tiny peninsula.
There is simply no way to avoid contact with water, nor vapors in the air caused by a slight temperature decrease, reducing solubility of gases and releasing the into the air. This is a definite health hazard, which could easily be solved by moving the capital inland, so the government isn't affected by toxicity on a daily basis.
There are ways to keep away from toxicity, locking up in a room, wearing gas masks, etc., but is it really worth the risk when it's easier just to move inland, where the water and air are clean, it's closer to the geographic centre, there are existing government buildings, and no damage from Doomsday? If there was a reason to keep Macau, I would keep it, but it's really not worth it. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 15:28, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
Since no review tag was added, this is where it goes. Please use paragraphs like everyone else next time as well.
For starters, this is only being brought up because it oversteps his permission for editing the article, and I told him when he brought it up on the talk pages, that because of that, he cannot do it. He's just trying to redo an article that he has only slim permission to edit - which he is constantly trying to overstep - in his own image.
This "complaint" assumes a great deal, but that's not too shocking. Things such as the positioning of such factories in the city, how far the chemicals can flow in the water, and that they can even get into the water to start with. None of these assumptions are logical by any means.
"Combust" - as in fires. Fires = no chemicals to get into the water as they burn up. Nasty chemical fires, true enough, but that doesn't do anything even remotely like Kenny is claiming, or even contaminate Macau at all. Not only that, but in the impossible chance that the chemicals survive all of the reasons why they cannot exist, the flow of the river would carry any such contamination, ignoring that it cannot exist, out to sea. The entire area is thus fine, and as such, calls your research into question, once again.
Macau is the capital, and he just wants to change it so that it benefits him. He's biased in the area, by his own admission, and this reflects it. There is no need for the "review" that he has now attempted, or to question the capital, at all.
Sorry about that, I'm still learning about DD. I just want to get in a few good contributions for now.
First of all, I'm just going to state I have no bias that is relevant in this situation. I am not a recent Chinese immigrant, I have never been to China. My ancestors came to Peru in the early 20th century. We lost contact in the 1970s, way before I was born, because the last person died who could actually read Chinese. All I know is that they were from "Cantón," which by Peruvian standards, could be anywhere in Guangdong. I have studied in my own time Mandarin, not Cantonese. I can say basically hi, count to one, and a few other words, so I have no Cantonese nationalism. I wouldn't say Chinese nationalism exists much really in Peru, because they are nothing like their counterparts in China. In fact I'm not even full Chinese, I'm mestizo. If anything I'm pro-Macau and that's it. Stop the accusations without knowing the facts. I have never heard of Kaiping until yesterday, and I chose it because of its juxtaposition with the mountains, its former status as a county seat, distance inland, and connection with trade routes. Yes I am wasting space here to tell you to stop, because you keep wasting space trying to spread rumours about me.
As for the actual argument, the chemical spread is imminent. First of all, the position of chemicals in relation to rivers is irrelevant. This is a delta. If you will divert your attention to the map I uploaded on the Pearl River page, it accurately shows the hundreds of distributaties around Guangzhou. In China, a lot of factories are like normal apartment buildings. Regardless, chances are, all factories are within a small distance from a river, whether on the outskirts of Guangzhou, in the inner city, regardless.
Second, take into account the climate. With factories everywhere destroyed and chemicals leaking onto the ground, it would seep directly into the water table, or runoff and storm drains would carry it to the estuary. Even if all this were false, because of the rise of the water table due to increased rainfall in Southern China, factories would have a higher chance of collapsing directly into the river.
Combustion may only affect organic compounds, but it also separates bonds. Say a piece of plywood were burnt to ash, the glue and preservatives that aren't organic would quickly seep into water as toxic ash. Everyone knows not to burn plywood. That's just an example, look around any city and notice how many toxic paints, glues, plastics, or preservatives would be released by extreme heat.
You can't forget the possibility of acid rain. I am aware that the original fire would only have burnt for a few months, but if anything, anything at all, in Shenzhen, Guangzhou, or Hong Kong that survived the first set of fires, catching fire (arson very probable due to the crime rate and political situation), acid will release into the atmosphere, even and especially with organic chemicals like sulfur. In the event of acid entering the atmosphere, and the wind conditions are right, Macau is basically screwed. The concentration of the poisonous gases would be to the point that they would diffuse very quickly. You already admitted that materials that combust would go into the air.
Overall, there is no doubt chemicals would leak. According to gravity, they will definitely reach the ground. According to the water cycle, all water will travel downstream. The ground would probably too saturated to hold much aquiferous water, meaning the vast majority would travel in the delta's hundreds to thousands of small streams right into the delta, washing up upon beaches. Not to say the beaches aren't already polluted enough. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 23:16, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
Hate to incite an argument, but there's no use in waiting. Are there any more objections to changing the capital of Macau to Kaiping/Hoiping? Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 05:17, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
Ahh, thank you for reminding me to respond to this..... biased bin of assumptions.
You have admitted elsewhere your bias for the region. Denying it now doesn't help you any. You openly admit your family came from areas north of Macau, and are trying to move the capital there for no logical reason, which is obvious bias. And, you make claims that would only be possible if you had been there, which, again, you openly admit is not true, making them incredibly foolish assumptions.
I have seen the map you posted - I don't ignore entire histories like you do. You assume, again, that these factories are near the water - you have no evidence for this, and are just basing this on your own personal belief. Thus, that cannot be trusted at all or used. It being a Delta actually hurts your cause, because that means the contamination - not that any can exist - would deposit long before the ocean, where Macau is. And that is completely ignoring the currents in the far side of the Delta itself, which would carry any such chemicals out to sea. Seriously Kenny, actually look at your map. It's pretty obvious where the current goes.
Again, an assumption on the weather. If you'd actually bothered to do more than glance at things, you'd have noticed that atl, increased rainfall and such is a recent phenomenon. And, you assume that it wouldn't negatively effect rainfall, but would increase it, which while there is a chance it might be accurate, is another foolish assumption, as odds are just as good that the opposite would happen.
You also make assumption on the water table. Macau is a fair ways away from these strikes, excepting Hong Kong, and HK has its own table. There is virtually no way that the water table can be contaminated in Macau from the strikes. And, once again, you base that assumption on your assumption about the factories, which is just foolishness.
Again, the factory assumption you erred in making rears its head into your fire analysis. Ignoring that, you completely fail to recognize the difference between a massive fire on this scale and lighting a piece of plywood on fire. On this scale, all of those things that do not normally burn go up too because of the greater hear and scale. Another assumption, totally unfounded, in what would happen to inorganic substances - you do realize that they burn too, right? Seriously, do you know anything about this at all? Sure doesn't seem like it.
True, the fires would likely release some acid rain. But I suggest that you actually look at the effects of acid rain and how long it takes, because it is obvious that you have not. Lakes that become contaminated from such rain have taken years to do so, not months, even of contamination like this. None of the non-existent chemicals would be present in anything remotely close to danger levels.
And, an assumption on the wind. There is a small chance that Macau would get a couple days worth of wind blowing the smoke to them, but more than that is impossible. The fires would largely be out within a month - fuel running out, and rain - with none last more than three. Winds in that area of the world in July go northeast, switching by January to southwest. September is two months after July, meaning that the winds are still largely going northeast, meaning the entire area escapes contamination. Winds going southwest, like January, miss Macau entirely, and in fact contaminate your extremely biased choice. Even with the winds starting to change they miss it. Another assumption, without any research, that is entirely unfounded.
And, even if despite there being no chance at all of it happening, any contamination in Macau, light as it would be, would be gone by the time they noticed it had happened. Why on earth would they move the capital then? answer is simple - they wouldn't, especially to an area that would have got it worse.
Thus, what little chemicals that might possibly escape the destroyed cities do not get anywhere near Macau. Few would leak, and each and every one of Kenny's "arguments" is based on a combination of more foolish assumptions on his part and no research. Even if, despite how impossible it is, that a large amount of chemicals got into the river system somewhere, it is a delta in which they would start, if not finish, being deposited long before Macau in the "hundreds to thousands of streams," or be carried out to sea by the incredibly obvious current.
In short, Macau itself is not contaminated. This is simply a very obvious, biased, based-on-unsubstantiated-assumptions, attempt for him to both have his way with an article, doing things with it that he has no permission whatsoever to do, and to move the capital to an area that would likely have been contaminated, in which he openly admits to have a familial bias, away from a un-contaminated area.
Okay, you know what? Maybe you're right about me being biased. You see, I can tell you are making an honest attempt to tell the truth to the entire community that I am biased based on actual evidence. And as everyone knows, truth is only what people perceive to be true. We all know how quickly negative comments instantly become the truth, so if you were able to convince every one of the community members I am biased, maybe I would have to reconsider my own intuitions that I honestly don't care about Kaping vs. Macau, but I'm just a bit OCD about having a capital where politicians get sick and die. Maybe because you spread rumours about me, I might actually have actually born myself in Kaiping and not even know it! I appreciate your efforts to be truthful, but you know sometimes you have to avoid telling the truth to avoid harming the reputation of your fellow proletariat, yknowhatimean?
Of course, you see. Sometimes, I understand that you have to tell the truth in order to get your point across. Sometimes the difference between a short-term and long-term connection between a member of this site and a random Chinese town is very relevant to the situation. Perhaps Mr. Almeida y Costa, foreseeing a shortly-removed relative of someone in Kaiping ready to be born within the next few years, might decide not to move the capital there. Or maybe I have secret mind powers I gained from shortly-removed relatives in Kaiping where I can go into alternate histories and do stuff like release anthrax into the city! The opportunities are enormous. Which is exactly why I decide to side with you on the argument of my being biased, comrade.
Okay, and as for assumptions. You misunderstand assumptions without evidence. You see, I provide "assumptions" based on research and prior knowledge. However, I failed to cite it out of laziness. So I found a quote: "The Pearl River Delta has become the world's workshop and is a major manufacturing base for products such as electronic products (such as watches and clocks), toys, garments and textiles, plastic products, and a range of other goods. Much of this output is invested by foreign entities and is geared for the export market. The Pearl River Delta Economic Zone accounts for approximately one third of China's trade value." But of course, I know you don't take secondary sources for your truthfulness.
A simple Google Maps search of the word "plastic factory" revealed hundreds of plastic factories on the Pearl River Delta, and that only counts the plastic factories that actually have "plastic factory" in their name. Check this out: [1]Pearl River Plastic Factory. Insanely close to the water and within the range of fire. Factories are close to water for several reasons I need not list. And we all know the effects of factory fires on the water supply[2][3][4][5][6]. But I understand my argument is incomplete and maybe therefore you would not accept it. For I didn't include any other types of factories besides plastic. Not chemical, nor pharmaceutical, nor food production, nor gluing Apple computers together in a small apartment building.
Say they didn't have plastic, chemical, or pharmaceutical factories in 1983 at all in Guangzhou, I beg you. But unless you can prove that with external references, it is not only an assumption, but an unfounded assumption.
Yes, inorganic compounds can combust, but they don't just disappear. Hydrocarbons such as methane use CH4+2O2 --> CO2+2H20 and turn cleanly into water and carbon dioxide. Both are found in the air naturally. However, the only other compounds that can be created by combustion and found naturally in air are nitrogen dioxide (which will cause acid rain) and carbon dioxide. This means only carbohydrate compounds will burn into the air and disappear, although the fire is very unruly and will certainly result in the creation of carbon monoxide. The rest will runoff, making horrendous reactions. Of course I know chemicals aren't truthful…
Have you ever been in a city or suburb during a heavy rain? There are currents that carry water down streets into a storm drain or body of water. However, with the poor drainage system, floods[7] will undoubtedly pick up and dissolve or otherwise carry foreign materials directly into the various streams. That are ubiquitous. But of course, if you've never been in a city during a heavy rain, I have nothing to argue.
Okay, so we have established that there is pollutants in the streams. From the streams, water is clearly carried downhill. You're right about it being deposited earlier on than Macau, but heck, the whole reason Macau exists is because silt deposited there thousands of years ago. See this map, which shows a dramatic increase in land area caused by deposition of sediment over 530 years. Observe the island directly south of Macau, how it merged from two islands into one island. No this is not a result of land reclamation, land reclamation did not exist in China at the time. This is from purely natural causes, not a huge climate change. Imagine the effects of such a great increase that would be caused by a rainier climate along the entire course of the Xi River, it would be catastrophic.
Also, have you heard of diffusion of water? In order to maintain equilibrium, the water with the toxic solute would diffuse, regardless of currents, diffusing random crap along with it.
Besides chemicals, you have to understand the effect of bacteria. In the San Francisco Bay, we already have tons of mutated algae ATL, and that's canon. With the added amount of chemicals and radiation, bacteria that is able to survive pose a potential health hazard, that will potentially bring Macau's beaches to a "below satisfactory" level. You are right about this, the effects aren't immediate obviously. The dangerous chemicals would take years to collect on Macau's shores, as much of it will get deposited up river and then recollected and deposited downriver. However, who knows what would be going on in Guangzhou? The government of Macau doesn't know whether any future bombings by the USSR or US or anyone might start another fire in a different part of the city. There's a ton of arson going on in Guangzhou because of the tribal conflict. They don't know much at all about the actual situation, so why take the risk? Move the capital until there's environmental stability. All it takes is to move a couple of Asians for a few years.
".75 percent - 86 percent of the rainfall in Macau is acidic. The pH values of the rainall are from 3.65-6.72."
"4. Acid rain in Macau is due to foreign effect."
"the acid rain in Macau is going to persist in the near future."
If it makes you feel better, I'll have them move the capital back to Oumuhn on or before July 4th, 2010, so it doesn't interfere with canon at all and this argument is invalid. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 05:26, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
All I have to say to that, Kenny, is that it just furthers the ignorant and foolish assumptions that you made before the post I made here last. Most of what you quote is for modern China, which is vastly different from the China of 1983, and you of all people should know that. Simple bias. Lordganon 11:05, June 21, 2011 (UTC)
Population Redistribution
I've been looking over a lot of the nation articles in this TL, and I have to say the population of most countries seems... I don't want to say implausible, but strange. Some places seem to high, others to low; so I ask that we implore, not force, people to go back over the countries they've made with other people who have made countries in the same areas and redistribute the populations more so they are equal. Riley.Konner 12:01, July 24, 2011 (UTC)
Examples? I've never noticed anything that odd, for the most part. Lordganon 19:29, July 24, 2011 (UTC)
I would say the west coast being the prime example; the current survivor population is set at five million, and with most of the population in OTL being centered on the west coast don't you think it seems likely that those survivor states on the coast would have a higher population? The only explanation would be people just left, which wouldn't make any sense, or they all somehow died off (which I guess would be the best explanation). Riley.Konner 14:56, July 24, 2011 (UTC)
Most of California's loss (the greatest population density on the west coast) is due to the strategic importance of the state to the US, coupled with most of the people being concentrated in major population centers. In 1983 there were about 25 million people in California. Add in the populations of Oregon (a mere 2.5 million) and Washington (another 4.2 millon) [these also being in population centers, some of which were targeted], and you get about 31.5 million people, 80% of which were in targeted areas (25.2 million). Lets assume, then, that 80% of the 25.2 million people die either directly or within a few years. That leaves about 5 million survivors plus the 6 million or so not effected directly by the disaster of doomsday. The 5 million fight with the 6 million for the resources available (as we see in the articles about the area). It is concievable, then, that there would be massive death. Whether or not half of these people would die and then not begin repopulation (say 1% per year?) is another question.
I don't know if the estimate of 5 million on the west coast is accurate, but it seems within reasonable perimeters. The west coast might very well have lost people in whatever boats were available (see the articles on South America and the immigrant crises there). Many would disappear statistically, not wanting to be counted. The figures given in many articles are the assumptions of the "WCRB" and those have been known to be inadequate based on many factors - not the least the lack of resources. SouthWriter 00:36, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
And you don't find just the little bit weird that those who would remain have just not found a country or (god forbid) been enslaved? I don't debate your statistics, but it's been 28 something years; it seems implausible that no one has found someplace to live on the west coast or anywhere else in the country. Also only a couple thousand, or even more likely only a couple hundred, would have probably found there way to South America. Some people will stay isolated some people will migrate.
I think you both might be taking this wrong way, I'm not saying every article has a population problem (that statement is debatable) that makes it implausible, Im saying that no one has done a good sweep through of there articles. Riley.Konner 21:02, July 24, 2011 (UTC)
Well for starters, the 5 million you quote is California on its own, according the the US state chart, not the West Coast. Considering that, at best, the survivor states in California come to about 2.75 million - the figure is closer to 2.6, but we'll go with the higher to make the math simpler in comparison- the 5 million has to be an error.
Most of the population is in the major cities - LA, SF, Sacramento, SD, SJ, and Oakland, along with a raft of smaller cities with between 150-500 thousand people in them, which all either went "Boom" themselves or caught full-on radiation/fires from the bigger cities.
In California, which is more urbanized than the other two states, at about 97.5 percent since the 1980 census being in urban areas of 50,000 or more, and more compact around the targets, the number in nuked cities/suburbs of them (LA, for instance, given it is so dry, would have uncontrollable wildfires for a long time afterwards, killing whatever is left... repeat elsewhere in the south), the deaths would be in the region of 90-95% or maybe even higher within the first couple of weeks. Let's go with about 91%, here, towards the low end of the range but not quite at it.
That leaves about 2.25 million survivors, of which we can safely assume 500-750 thousand die within a year. Gangs, hunger, radiation... that kind of thing. Call it 500k.
Assuming a decent growth rate - call it 2%? - on that 1.75 million, that gives us about 2.73 million people in California today, more or less within my parameters. Chalk the difference up to a combination of a touch more than 91% and a touch more than 500k.
Oregon is stated to have a population of about 1,598,861 on the same page.
Washington is unknown from that source, but cribbing from other articles, I expect it's population is between 1-1.75 million, largely in Pasco and Victoria. I figure 1.25 million works here, myself.
Gives us about 5.58 million total. Makes sense, then, though thank you for pointing out the California error. I'll fix that tomorrow.
Anything else? I'm willing to show why those are the figures given, and change things, quite readily. I've had a look through everything here, and for the most part, things should be right, but as I said, if something needs changing, I've no problem doing it.
Those all seem like logical and well calculated statistics, so I'll take your word for it and agree with you. Although you forgot to consider migration in and out of the region that seems like a moderate to small factor, but a changing factor none the less; what do you think it would be considering migration? Riley.Konner 23:09, July 24, 2011 (UTC)
Don't really consider migration to be an issue in the region. That's more of a Gulf Coast thing, atl.
At most, I'd say that would change the net result to 5.5 million, but I doubt it would impact it at all, being that those would be included in the 500k reduction most likely. The west coast is pretty isolated from the rest of the world, if you think about it, and most people with boats the live through the first few weeks would stay put. The San Diego strikes would isolate the Mexican border, and mountain ranges or desert would have much the same effect elsewhere. But, my figure is an estimate - I figure the number would lie anywhere between 5.5 million to 5.6 million, given the data.
First, we've discussed expansion before, but it never got anywhere. There's countries interested in joining, and with the war over, it seems like it could actually happen now. Have a look at the ADC talk page for more. I'd like to see some expansion, at least to allies of current members, and hopefully another NA member too.
Second, who is this Secretary General? Never even heard of him, and the only Daniel Perry google or wikipedia can find is a American journalist/Congressional worker/executive, and given his work and when he was appointed to a federal task force, he was at the Capitol on Doomsday, being an assistant to the majority whip. Can't be him, so who is it? Really don't know, lol.
Thoughts on someone else for the position, or where they should be from, in light of this, knowing the name is only mentioned in two spots and can be easily replaced?
I know you're against using fictional characters LG, but not everyone of importance in this timeline is going to be someone with a Wikipedia article.
Anyway, with the Mediterranean Defence League being host to nations openly hostile to ADC member nations, they look like a possible future threat. Especially Turkey, who has been openly hostile to Greece and friendly towards Sicily. So enemies of Turkey and Macedonia are likely potential members of the ADC, especially once the planned conquest of Serbia goes through, Macedonia will not be looked at kindly by neighboring nations.
I know Croatia and Slovenia have expressed interest in joining, possibly Rhodope. Egypt might as well, but with likely good relations with Turkey as well as Greece, they might want to just stay out of it. Tuscany is a likely new member. Venice and Genoa I believe are too far in bed with the AlpFed, so unless they come to the ADC as a way of attaining full independence from the AlpFed, I don't see them joining.Oerwinde 06:46, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
Haven't bothered with wikipedia, past a certain point. More or less useless for that work. I've got a list here of people that all work, cribbed from military websites, just have to think of which ones are best to present here. Most of the guys I have listed do not have articles on wikipedia. Canada, North Germany, the Celtic Alliance, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland all have entries on the list. It'll get changed to someone good, I assure you.
As for members, we have a list of applicants on the ADC page, along with reasons for/against various ones joining scattered through it. Egypt has as of yet held no interest - with good reason, I'd think. Tuscany has not applied, nor are they a good candidate, in my opinion. You're right about the Venetians, though the Genoans are much more independent, being so entirely - not that the principle does not apply there too, lol. Vlad is on record as saying, now, that Croatia and Slovenia are not joining. Rhodope has applied.
List I have compiled, organized by country. Otl positions included in brackets. Note that this is not the full list, just those more likely off it to be heading such an organization.
Denmark
General Knud Bartels (otl nato head candidate) (danish chief of defense otl)
Finland
General Mika Peltonen (commander of the Multinational Task Force North of EUFOR otl)
General Gustav Hägglund (former finnish chief of staff and chairman of the European Union Military Committee otl)
Admiral Jan Klenberg (former finnish chief of staff otl)
Norway
Air General Lars Myraune (also a politician otl) (former major general otl)
Admiral Torolf Rein (former norwegian chief of staff otl)
General Sverre Diesen (former norwegian chief of staff otl)
North Germany
Admiral Michael Mollenhauer (deputy commander of NATO Joint Command Lisbon otl)
Sweden
Admiral Håkan Syrén (former Swedish chief of staff and chairman of the European Union Military Committee otl)
General Karl Engelbrektson (commander of the Nordic Battle Group otl)
Air General Owe Wiktorin (former Swedish Chief of Staff otl)
Celtic Alliance
General Jeremy Mackenzie (former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe otl)
General James Sreenan (former irish chief of staff otl)
General Dave Ashe (Irish Deputy Chief of Staff for Support otl)
General Colm Mangan (former irish chief of staff otl)
Portugal
Air General Tia Charles (otl Chief of Air Personnel)
Greece
Admiral Ioannis Zotos (Head of the Navy Economic department otl)
Air General Fotios Krevaikas (Head of the Greek Air Force Supply Command otl)
Canada
Commodore Daniel Sing (Director General Maritime Force Development otl)
Colonel J.D. Bernier (Defense Attache to Australia otl)
General D.W. Thompson (Deputy Director General International Security Policy otl)
Air General D.A. Davies (Senior Delegate - Air Force Strategic Engagement otl)
Now, my goal here is two things: One, to remove the fictional Perry. Two, it has now been four years since the ADC formed, and given that it is based on NATO and they have a four year limit, customarily, for their Secretary-General position, we need a new one here, too.
Now, a Canadian or a Greek, in my mind, would be unlikely. Rule them out, I think. Of the rest, one of the Nordics would be most likely, probably Sweden. Of those, I think an Admiral is most probable, followed by an "Air" General (that here is merely used to show which are air force), and lastly an Army General.
I think that Admiral Håkan Syrén of Sweden would be a good replacement for Perry. Will make it so that ADC movements make more sense, too.
As for his successor.... Well, I'm inclined to not have it be a Nordic, if the first one is. Not done in NATO, not likely done here. The Canada and Greece stuff still applies, of course. Leaves us a choice between the Celts, and Portuguese, with maybe the North Germans included. Despite him being an Army General, I'm of a mind, then, to have the next ADC head be General Jeremy Mackenzie of the Celtic Alliance.
And before someone starts up about it, let me say that Perry is on the ADC article, and referenced in a couple more war articles. Nowhere else. It's an easy thing to do, to switch the names, and will have virtually no impact. Other than to make it so that we're not using a fictional or dead character where there is virtually no need to do so.
Great research, LG, and I concur that whenever possible real, live persons should be used. I have enough trouble keeping up with my American projects - some of which have a low profile, making identifying 'real' people very diffiecult. SouthWriter 15:45, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
Thought I'd asked this before, but would anyone have an issue with my picks here? Lordganon 00:28, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
As I requested, I have made the changes. Lordganon 15:02, November 20, 2011 (UTC)
League of Nations Secretary General
King George Tupou V, current Secretary General, has only a couple months left in his three year term - the page says late fall, which I take to mean sometime in November. Now, the successor is pretty much set in stone - the LoN page says that the current High Commissioner of French Polynesia will succeed him. That'd be Cedric Wairafea, also the head of the RFTA. I'm thinking November 18th or so for the date.
At that time, I'd like to replace him on the RFTA page with someone else, as it's not a position he could keep as the S-G, unlike the King. My pick would be Edouard Fritch, unless someone objects.
I've now done this, and newsbits will be up in the next few minutes. Lordganon 06:45, November 20, 2011 (UTC)
Nordic Union Presidency
Mentioned this on the Nordic Union talk page, suppose I should ask here since it'll be more noticeable, and to follow things I've said in the past, lol.
Anyhoo, the NU presidency, which is elected for three year periods, is up at the end of the year. Currently, it is held by Halldór Ásgrímsson, of Iceland, since 2008. There's no limit on terms, but most of them only have served a single term, which is the usual for most international organizations.
Given recent developments, I'm thinking that a change would be in order, probably to a Finn.
After hunting around, I believe that Sauli Niinistö of Finland would be a good choice for the new leader. Would that be all right? Lordganon 08:15, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
I like the idea of a Finn holding the presidency. Approve. Benkarnell 20:00, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
As noted, the presidency of Halldór Ásgrímsson has expired, and Sauli Niinistö has now replaced him. Can't believe I screwed it up in my notes that it started this January when it was actually in September, lol. Lordganon 08:49, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
King Andrew
I've collected known info on His Majesty into one article, Andrew Windsor (1983: Doomsday). It's not a proposal because it doesn't include any new information. Feel free to add anything I missed.Benkarnell 16:24, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
I hesitated on whether to include "Defender of the Faith" in his titles. What do we know about the Anglican Church in TTL? Does New Britain make it the state religion, and if so, does it follow Old Britain in placing the monarch at the head? Speaking of, what is Andrew's current relationship to the statelets and churches in Great Britain? Benkarnell 22:44, December 14, 2011 (UTC)
Well, there's still a fairly large amount of Anglicans atl. Can't quote figures or anything, mind, but with all the places that still refer to large Protestant populations that once were holding a lot of Anglicans, I suspect that they would still exist.
I'd assume that in NB he's still the head. It's still the state religion there, if you could call it that, though very altered, and with a few new splinter groups.
Cleveland has replaced it, and pretty well all Christian Churches, with the Church of Albion - Northumbria too, mind - which while similar is entirely different. It's also going to have the Queen as it's head.
In the Alliance, I'm sure that small numbers still exist, though the majority were folded into the Celtic Church.
Southern England's lost a ton of people to Atheism, though 20% are still Protestant. Given pre-DD numbers I expect that there are still some.
In Woodbridge, 70% of the 60% of the pop who are Christian are stated to belong to the Anglican Church.
The bishop for the area of Essex, and the diocese structure, easily survived DD in the capital of Essex. Can reasonably assume that it's ok here.
Got me on the rest.
I'd include it. At the very least he'd likely stay in charge of the NB one, officially.
I am proposing an international organization for all of the nations' democracies in this timeline. John McCain (or anyone else if he didn't survive Doomsday) is very concerned that authoritarian nations' influence in the League of Nations has tried to prevent war against other authoritarian nations in terms of human rights (like Libyan Civil War in OTL) John decides to make this organization to deal with events like these so that authoritarian nations will not hinder progress of democracy. I think that most, if not all, of the world's democracies should take part in this organization. What do you think of the concept?
Plus it's unlikely McCain survived as he was elected to the House of Representatives in Jan 1983 and was likely in Washington DC when the nukes fell.--Smoggy80 17:41, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
RWG proposed more or less this exact same thing for New Union, and it was shot down there.
McCain is dead.
RWG, you may want to have a good look at the LoN page that smoggy linked to. There is not a single member which is not democratic.
Since McCain was the leader of the freshman class that year, and from far away Arizona, he probably had an apartment in DC. It is highly unlikely that he got out of midtown even with a 30-minute warning. If he had a place in the suburbs (having worked in DC before), chances increase a little, but not by much.
As for authoritarian vs. democracies, RWG has a point. The USSR and Cuba, just to name two, can not be called 'democratic' even if some communist states include "Democratic" in their name. Being a "people's republic" is not the same thing as being a "democracy" in the sense of the word that an American politician would accept. There are a number of nations that have parliaments, but also have absolute monarchs. These do not seem so much like "democracies" to the average observer. It is certainly true that socialist countries can be democratic, but communist countries and Islamic monarchies don't count as such. Democracies have the upper hand, but the veto power of the USSR alone has kept many budding democracies out due to the fact that they "claim" those governments.
Having said this, I agree that such an organization as supposed here would not work in this time line. SouthWriter 03:13, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
You may want to have another good look at the USSR - atl, it is democratic.
Cuba is an assumption, since it has no government section, but at the very least it has moderated from otl. On some level, it's going to be better.
There's no other communists anymore that are members at all. Nor "Democratic Republics."
The Islamic Monarchies still have democratic representation - they, while called absolute, are in fact between that and a constitutional monarchy. And only the Saudis and Oman fall into the category. The rest are either outright Republics, or Constitutional Monarchies. And, they are all members of the GSU, which is democratic.
There is no outright dictatorship of any kind that is an LoN member, unlike the UN otl. Thus, absolutely no need for something like this.
I admit I am not as read up on these articles as LG, but to call a the USSR "democratic" in this time line is playing word games. A one-party communist state that has an active propoganda machine with the "secret" police always around is not what the average observer would call a democracy. According to the article: "The USSR, like Cuba, takes pride on being one of the few surviving post-Doomsday Communist states."
A communist state is the opposite of a democracy, whether or not they have "free elections" and a stated freedom of assembly (watched always by the police state). Cuba in TTL is called a communist state, and as such, it's form of government might claim "democracy" but it also would fail the common sense definition. A democracy has its authority in the people and the laws which the people's freely elected representatives put in place. A communist state may have an elected leader, but things are 'state controlled,' meaning that there are few, if any, checks and balances.
In agreeing to disagree, I must point out that the theoretical American politician in the porposal would be driven by the American ideal, not what has become the accepted definition, in this time line at least, of a 'democracy.' Any state that has an authoritarian leader - even as the one Viginia gave up to become a member of the LoN - would not be considered a "true democracy." I think that is where RWG is coming from. I also point out that my remarks above deliberately mention the 'average' observer, not the policy wonk or even the historian. I personally have long understood 'ideal' communism and 'pure' democracy as being the same thing. But I also hold that the US is not, nor ever has been a "democracy" in the pure sense (in OTL). Libertarian politicians in TTL may have accomplished such, but I don't think the USSR is even close to such. SouthWriter 19:14, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
A secret police does not mean a state is not democratic. All it means is that the state is not a liberal democratic one.
Communism is not the opposite of democracy. Dictatorship is the opposite, and there's a big difference between that and communism. About the only communist states that were not dictatorships with a communist shell are the last couple years of the USSR, Nepal, a few states of India, and for a few years after having been elected, San Marino. They also form coalitions with socialists in several other places, like parts of Brazil, Cyprus, and South Africa. All of these were democratically elected, and are far closer to what Communism actually is than the best-known examples. Note, however, that I do abhor Communism and find the concept ridiculous.
Even if it's an idealized American version of democracy, that is, as you say, not the world standard now in place.
But, as you say, let us agree to disagree about the fine points, since we agree that the proposed concept cannot possibly ever work atl.
Of course the LoN has non-democratic nations. Excluding non-democracies as a matter of course would rather defeat the purpose of having a universal forum for global discussion.
I was thinking for some of the countries in 1983 Doomsday would be theocratic (rule by religious law). We know Iran is one of the obvious. Is it possible that few of the new countries formed after Doomsday may be founded by religious people or some countries that did surivve Doomsday may undergo a religious coup?
I was thinking of some theocratic governments, including:
Israel
Philippines
Every Muslim country in the Middle East
Nigeria
Ethiopia
Pakistan
Tibet
So what do you think? RandomWriterGuy 22:39, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
RWG, please actually look at these places. Not one of those nations is theocratic in any form. And do so before making more posts, as was asked of you with New Union, as well, please.
In this timeline, only Iran and Olmsted are theocratic. Tibet is the only other one even remotely close.
I have a question concerning Canada and diplomatic relations, but I am unsure as to who to address it to. I am in the process of writing my section for Delmarva regarding diplomatic relations. My intention has been for Delmarva to make contact with Brazil during their 1989 expedition along the US East Coast, thus opening up political and trade relations with them and South America.
This in turn influences an age of exploration as their vessels begin reaching out and making contact. I had hoped for contact with Canada by 1990, especially because of how close the two areas are. However, when reading through the Canada article I note they don't "find" Delmarva until 1995 after visiting everyone else in the world. You mean some small group from Canada, separate from the fleet doesn't get curious and visit the area earlier? That does not make much sense.
Secondly, if I establish relations with S. America, Delmarvan representatives will be there in 1994 during the Canadian visit, so they couldn't just find Delmarva the following year anyway. I would like to suggest contact earlier between the two areas, so they already know and have contact. However, I would be okay with the "official fleet" not visiting until 1995. Who could I discuss this matter with. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 14:28, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
To start off, I'm the one who put that in the Canada article, and all things considered, am probably more or less its caretaker at this point. So, I suppose that it'd be me.
At any rate....
It's already been canon that Brazil didn't find anyone substantial for a very long time. Despite the Brazil article referring to "Canada," other articles indicate that none of their explorers made it even to the Outer Banks before outside contact was established by other means with these areas. The same goes for the "New York" line in the Brazil article, which actually violates a great deal of canon elsewhere..... guess I'll edit that part right now.
The Bermuda article refers to it establishing contact with Delmarva in 1990. At the same time, outside contact beyond that is only referred to as being really done in the 2000's. Thus, we need to assume that Delmarva itself only did so between those two dates.
Brazilian explorers only ran into the Outer Lands, Outer Banks, and Elizabeth City after 2000, in a few cases after others already had done so. To find Delmarva through exploration in 1989 but not these obvious ones is just not possible. Discussion about EC has indicated that the Outer Banks did indeed have some outside contact, despite their isolationism, between 1990 and 2000, but that it amounted to little. That's the "contact" the Canada article refers to.
The Canadian fleet simply went to the nearest source of contact, radio transmissions from the Azores, that they already had. From there, their path is logical. At that point in time, the Canadian government really only controlled the Maritime Islands and parts of the coastline, too, so they really weren't exploring too much. Remember, the main goal of the fleet was to re-open contact with the West Coast, not exploring, and along the way they reopened contact with others that they knew about due to contact with Portugal and the Celtic Alliance.
And, Canada establishes contact with the outside world, except the Celts, Nords, and Portuguese, in 1991. Everything north of southern North Carolina was unknown until this point, having been assumed destroyed, and it is only from there that anything is discovered about the North Atlantic. Going from that, Delmarva cannot be in contact with either Canada or anyone else at that time, since if that was the case, none of this would be true, and the Franklin would have went up the East Coast, which it did not do. The same goes for the Nimitz in 1993.
As to it not making sense, why on earth would Canadian vessels explore down a destroyed coastline, into what is another country, when they have the same type of thing at home that they need to deal with? And, knowing of other countries elsewhere, why would they go elsewhere, when they are of no use to them? Simply put, they wouldn't.
1995 is a very logical date, in light of what all other articles say. 1989 is not. Contact, by canon, is not possible with outside until at least 1994. I took all of this into account when I put the 1995 date in, and there is no reason at all for it not to stand.
LG, my apologies for taking so long to respond. Between my job and being out of town for several weeks in the Northwest, I have not had a chance to return to our discussion until now. In regards to the matter here is my thoughts. If you look at the US East Coast following the war, Delmarva is in the best position early on of any of the survivor nations to begin exploring the coast and embarking on trade exploration voyages. They have a number of small ports along with a fair number of vessels including some freighters and several coast guard cutters they could utilize. Now, I think it would be fair to say for the first five years, roughly 1983-1988, they concentrate on working on their own affairs. However, at some point, given their maritime resources as I mentioned, I find it implausible Delmarva would not try to launch sea explorations and instead do absolutely nothing for 12 years. Also consider this, Delmarva lacks energy deposits such as oil, coal, or natural gas that other areas have. Given the importance of fuel and other items of commerce it would be in their best interest to launch sea expeditions in the hope of locating other nations and establishing trade to obtain these. Given Delmarva's access to the coast and their maritime resources it would be logical for them to pursue this path than trying to carry out major land expeditions to old areas of the US. Logically, South America would be a destination for such expeditions given their resources of oil and gas.
Taking all I have said into consideration, I believe about 1989 Delmarva would be stable enough and desirous of seeing if other countries still exist and initiate trade voyages like the times of past. The arrival of Brazil about this time would nicely fit in. I raised the question of contact between the two nations to the writer of Brazil sometime ago and they had given me the okay to work it in as long as I could find a good anchorage spot for the aircraft carrier, which I think the Norfolk-Newport News roadstead would work fine for. My intention was to have the Brazilians go up the coast to NY as the article stated and miss Delmarva due to bad weather and by chance make contact on the way back. This would mark the beginning of close relationships between the two and help open inroads into SA for Delmarva. Even if this were to not happen, I am of the firm belief Delmarva would still initiate trade and exploration voyages south no later than 1990 due to contact with Bermuda and the reasons I already laid out towards the Caribbean and South America and have a presence there in time for the arrival of the Canada Navy.
As for Canada, it had just seemed plausible contact would have already been established, before 1995 most likely through contact by fishing boats at sea or radio even given it is just over something like 200+ miles to Canada. Heck, I could even see Delmarva sending an expedition there to explore. Your point is taken in regards to how the Canadians might view the condition of the East Coast post World War III, but given there were survivors in Maine and Vermont they would have made contact with before 1995, I can't help but believe they would have sent someone to explore the East Coast earlier rather than ignore it. However, you are handling Canada and as such, I can only suggest.
The thing to remember as I know you do, where as certain points will always remain canon or unchanged in this scenario, other parts are subject to changes depending on the development of other articles which did not exist at the time the original piece was written. This is something we have observed from time to time. I studied up on contacts between the various nations and noted gaps or unclear areas regarding contacts. I want to resolve this issue as it applies to Delmarva, but do it in a manner that is logical and makes sense along the lines I have laid out above. I look forward to your thoughts on the matter. --Fxgentleman 03:33, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
No worries Fx.
Canada only came into contact with Vermont and Aroostook in 1997. So, no reason to explore from there.
Canadian fishermen would not go south. The fishing there is overfished, and there wasn't much in the first place. They'd all go to the Grand Banks, like they have done for centuries.
Outside of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canadian control of the coastline would not have come until the 1990s. One heck of a lot more than 200 miles.
Delmarvan radios were fried. Canadian ones were not, and they heard signals from the Azores. They have no reason at all to head south when they have signals from the east.
Delmarva would have had access to several off-shore test rigs at the time. They've all been abandoned, etc. since 1984, but several were producing at the time. That's in addition to the tankers that would have been in the region. And, why on earth would they have wasted the fuel? They've every reason to believe the outside world gone, including South America - and there is no point in using up your fuel like that in such an event.
Bermuda makes contact with Delmarva, after a fashion, in 1990. Yet, they know nothing of the outside world until much later. Thus, Delmarva cannot be in contact in 1990 with the outside world. And, that contact was short and would have encouraged nothing.
Canada has been in contact with parts of the outside world since 1986, though only by radio. Contact south of the Azores only came in 1991. As the articles say, and noted by myself, why would they waste effort on ruined coastline when they knew where others definitely were? Simply put, they would not.
As I said, the Brazil stuff was not possible and has been removed/edited to make it so it was. I don't know who put it in originally, but I'd like to know what on earth they were thinking. That was the one and only reference to such an event, and was and has been contradicted virtually everywhere else.
Given Delmarvan areas of control, it is 100% impossible to get to NYC without spotting them, going up the coast, bad weather or not. And the same thing applies to the other states I listed the first time, between Georgia and Delmarva, and up to NYC. And yet, they were not in contact with these areas until the late 1990s at best.
You exaggerate the extent of the shipping. Remember, any modern, or more modern, vessels would be fried. And, the vast majority are only short-range - with the ones that aren't using up so much fuel that they simply wouldn't do it with their limited supplies - when you need fishermen for food, you're not going to waste fuel on other things.
As stated, neither the Franklin nor the Nimitz went up the East Coast of North America, instead heading to Europe. If Delmarva had been known, they would not have done so without going there first. Yet, they obviously did not. That means that there was no contact with Delmarva at that time. And this is something long, long, held in canon. And it ain't changing. The contact dates here are all very clear.
Simple logic, Fx. Canon, long enshrined, and in many places, says it has to be after 1993, even though the Delmarva article did not exist at the time. I fully realize that you do not think it plausible, but this is how it must be - and, for the record, I don't agree with you that it is not plausible, either.
Thus, 1989 is impossible. And, as I said, 1995 very reasonable. But, either way, it has to be after' 1993 that Delmarva gets to be in contact with the outside world. Not before.
Possible Unification of the British Isles in future
The Celtic Alliance is clearly the pre-eminent power in the islands, and will undoubtedly unite the archipelago. Now I've never been happy with the word Celtic because th e idea of modern Celts is a 19th century British invention. And I doubt that the nations in England will be happy about being lumped in with the Irish. And the Irish/Scots won't want to be British. So what do we call the future state? I have a few suggestions.
Britanniae-Britanniae is the old Roman term for all the islands, but 'Britanniaesh' hardly rolls off the tongue.
Albion-Could work very well, but usually refers to only Great Britain and England at that. And it is the name Cleveland and Northumbria will have when they unite.
Brutan-After Brutus, the legendary namesake of the Islands. Could equally appeal to the Celtic revival of old traditions and lore, and to the English states British nationalism.
Prydain-Welsh name for Britain, thus combining Britishness and Celticness.
Brittonica-Very old name for Britain thus combining the same ideals.
Avalon-Implies rebirth, and combines British and Celtic traditions.
Crytain-Old Welsh name for Ireland, bit heavier on the Celts than the Brits, but it does sound very much like Britain.
Aside from that, I was thinking we could call it the United States of _________ to imply a relative looseness of rule to deliver on the regional identities which will have emerged. Mumby 18:41, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
I have a thing for the name Prydain. Just sayin' - I love that word to bits. And it can be melded with Britain to form 'Pridain', 'Bridain', or 'Prytain' - which would be pretty acceptable for all. Fegaxeyl 18:48, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
....Huh?
The idea that they would merge makes no sense at all.
That's not what Mumby said; he said that the other British states would most likely be united under the Celtic Alliance and brought into it, rather than being equal partners. Fegaxeyl 08:27, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
The words "unite" and "merge" differ in meaning only slightly.
As I said, the idea makes no sense. Heck, his post even says why.
My view is that the British states will not be able to maintain their independence indefinitely. Either the OBN will evntually federate into a United States of Britain with the House of Percy at its head, or they will be subsumed into an altered Celtic Alliance. Considering the prosperity of the Alliance, this is more likely. The Celts have already shown themselves to be moderately successful at integrating Britons, though there is a significant contingent which calls for more autonomy for British provinces. Just extend that, and increase devolution, a Pryttish Federation is perfectly possible. Besides, you are not the whole community and cannot just barge in and veto. Mumby 17:10, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
LG is not vetoing it, he just said it does not make sense...and frankly I agree with him. Its been almost 28 years since Doomsday. And entire generation has grown up not knowing what the "United Kingdom" was, at least not in a real "this is my nation" sense. Their local leaders are more real to them. They are to ones who pulled them through the hell of Doomsday. Last time I check, the government of the United Kingdom left them for Africa. Mitro 18:38, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
I'm not talking about a restoration of the UK. I'm talking about a unification of the British Isles under Irish leadership, and a reasonable degree of local government that allows them to choose their own mode of democratic government. However, I am merely voicing an idea that the community might find interesting. If it isn't plausible it needn't go any further than here. Other than that, the most likely result is a British Federation born out of the OBN. And the OBN states are looking for other avenues for expansion so they may be able to operate independently of the Alliance. Mumby 18:59, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
Your own posts, and Mitro's, are exactly why it wouldn't be possible. Something like that with the OBN states, maybe - but not with the CA. Lordganon 09:30, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
Northumbria and Cleveland will merge into Albion due to the unification of the crowns of these nations, however this will not happen for many years, they also have no intention of merging with other OBN nations and Cleveland's already voted on joining the CA and the vote came back 'no'--Smoggy80 12:43, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
There is absolutely no chance of this happening, What has happened since DD is that the old divisions in the UK North/South, extra have been exaggerated to such a point that the idea of Britain is probably no more than a distant memory. Yes the celts could absorb the other countries by force but I see no reason why they would want to extend themselves that way. Vegas adict 13:09, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to disagree. The Essaxons, Woodbridgers, and Newollanders have all stated their fond memories of the old country. Besides, its not even been thirty years. And the Celtic Alliance has repeatedly stressed that it is the inheritor of the British and Irish states. If there was no memory of what it is to be British that statement would not be important. I accept that a unification may not happen, but there is still a lingering British identity. The Pryttish Federation may well be more like the German Federation of the 19th century, less of a union more a loose union of states that keep order, peace and prosperity, with the Celts as the Pryttish answer to Prussians. Remember it was just an idea and I didn't mean anything by it. Mumby 13:56, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
Just because the Celts say something, does not mean anyone will actually listen. There's a far cry between feeling nostalgic about the old country, and being dominated by the Irish.
Thirty years means than something like half the population, and likely more, only know of Britain through stories. In 10 years, they will be in charge.
And, imo, that is an overly pleasant view of both Prussia, the German Confederation, and how Germany unified.
I was simply using Germany as an analogue. I know that unification was hardly pleasant, but here the Celts are in an even more dominant position to Austria since there isnt an Austria to keep them in check. But the Celts are far less militaritistic and far more enlightened than the 19th century Prussians. And does it not occur to you that there are moves in America to recreate the USA with precisely the same issues, if not more because of the distances involved, yet when I suggest a loose confederacy that isn't even a government as simply an idea, I get shot down for simply mooting it? Mumby 15:35, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
Germany unified primarily because Napoleon's expeditions through Germanic territory showed the German vulnerability to France. This catalysed efforts to group closer and closer together until the Franco-Prussian War sparked the formation of the German Empire.
A British unification will occur only depending on what the dominant power in the Isles, the Celtic Alliance, does. Or, an external threat could galvanize unification, but no such threat exists. At the current stage, the OBN as it currently exists is most likely, to counter Celtic hegemony in the Isles. If the Celts grew stronger, for example acquired more naval vessels, the OBN would gain a military arm and economic union would occur.
Simply put, the Celts are likely to grow stronger, galvanizing these transformations. In decades to come this TL might see a Celtic Alliance/British Union balance of power that eventually yields to one power controlling the Isles, but this won't occur for a long time. Gatemonger 19:53, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
You need to calm the heck down, Mumby.
The USA movement does have significant resistance. They won't get most of the former US, by a long shot. Think about how that applies to the Isles.
Your idea has not been shot down. We have merely stated that it is not very realistic. The locals have shot down all attempts, with good reasons. To them, it is, I'm sure, something akin to an Irish annexation.
And, there's no outside threats that could realistically harm the area, either.
There is of course the obvious option....Britain, not Great Britain, just Britain. Seeing as there is already a Organisation of British Nations it would make sense that any unification (which is unlikely to happen anyway) would be called Britain--Smoggy80 20:31, January 21, 2012 (UTC)
Personally I'm inclined towards thinking that if the various English survivour nations are going to become one with anyone, it'd be Cleveland/ Albion. It's already the biggest and the one with the most economic and military clout, not to mention that technically speaking they can fufil the "until such a time as a true heir to the British Crown arrives to take control of our nation" part of Southern England's constitution. . Plus, when Cleveland and Northumbria unite, they're going to be known as Albion. The weight of fictional tradition is behind them. Although that said, it wouldn't happen for a good long while yet, and even then it'd depend on how things go.Tessitore 17:54, January 25, 2012 (UTC)
True dat. Newolland is quite monarchyish, so to further British unification (which they are very in favour of) they might pledge fealty to Albion to retain their own unique monarchy. The only sticking point are the more republican nations of Woodbridge and Essex. They will be less likely to want to pledge fealty to a Northern kingdom. I can also see Lancaster pledging fealty to Albion, and Southern Scotland might well become some sort of 'Associated Republic'. That could be the solution for Essex and Woodbridge. Mumby 10:08, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
Lancaster is a bit complicated. On one hand, they and Cleveland are more or less the best of friends but on the other there is a bit of a rivalry going on (not even Doomsday could erase the legacy of the War of the Roses), partly because the Lancastrians are a tiny bit put out about Yorkshire (which Cleveland pretty much is) outdoing them. Or to put it another way, Lancaster is tsundere for Cleveland. What this would mean with regards to the possibility of them pledging fealty, even I don't know.Tessitore 22:54, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
France/ANZC Deal
I had an idea while reading this article regarding the French overseas territories. In the past, France has often used its colonies as bargaining chips to get concessions from the UK and other powers. I don't see why they wouldn't resort to the same realpolitik tactics here.
What if the French government offers the ANZC a deal in a secret agreement? This deal would trade France's overseas territories for ANZC assistance in reunifying France under its rule. France would obviously gain from this and the ANZC would essentially control trade through the Southern Ocean.
I wanted to put this here first So I don't end up deleting other people's work. Obviously this will be a topic of discussion between the owners of the two pages, but let me know what you think of this proposal. Gatemonger 00:00, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
Err.....
Far as I know, the RTFA already has ANZC backing, as well as that of much of the world. And the ANZC is already in the position you describe, too.
Was looking through Britain and realised that there is nothing on Shropshire. It is not claimed and was not nuked. Is this because of fallout or am I free to create a state? (I am aware this is probably in the wrong area).
Sadly, the community consensus is that Britain has reached the 'plausibility event horizon' and it wouldn't make sense for there to be any more nations. You could, however, create a small city-state along the lines of Matlock, which could even exist within Shropshire so long as you make it clear that it's been absorbed into the Celtic Alliance. Feg 09:25, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks. There is nothing on the CA page or United Kingdom to suggest CA control. Should I change this?
Its part of the Celtic Alliance, joined in 2000, its in the section mark England on the CA page--Smoggy80 11:11, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
It's also clearly part of the CA on the map on the CA page and that of several other of the British survivor nations. Lordganon 13:44, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
A few of those are to one degree or another under another editor. Yank, for one. Lordganon 15:24, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
I would take over these but I'm very uninformed about the areas. However, I have tentative ideas for Lille.
While I'm here, I might as well kick off discussion: would there be any chance for an Organisation of French Nations, with the involvement of the RTA? I think Louisiannan had some plans in this direction as early as 2009 but never seemed to get round to them. I think it's high time we brought an 'ONF' into the timeline.
Additionally, I've ideas of some kind of antipiracy compact involving Essex, Southern England and Lille for the Strait of Dover. This could obviously extend to other British, French and Dutch nations as some kind of 'New Hansa'. It would be a logical and beneficial alliance now that most states in the area have good seafaring capability.
Also, since British people are most likely able to speak French, and vice versa, it would be the most obvious international link. I should point out too that the Celts would obviously have a stake in this, either against but more likely with the nations, perhaps acting as some sort of cultural/geographical bridge between the British Isles and France.
The French nation-states are currently negotiating some sort of new French state. Much more than something like the OBN. Think of it as more like the Greek Federation.
Only a single French nation borders the ocean, and that's not by much. And the only Dutch nation is decidedly isolationist. Basically, what you're describing is the OBN with the Celts.
Perhaps we should step up the progress of this nation, then? Also, I'm confused - from all the maps I've seen, at least four French nations border the sea (Lille, Poitevine, Auvergne, and I think Orleans too, which has controlled/claimed Normandy much longer than LG and Smoggy were discussing expanding the Celtic Alliance's French borders in Normandy). And after two years of inactivity on Louis' part, we have to assume some kind of expansion. After all, look what the British nations have done.
You're mistaking the claimed areas on the France maps as being part of their territory. Lille's the only one of the French states that does have actual territory on the ocean.
Even with expansion, that only adds, at most, one more French state on the ocean - and barely, at that. It wouldn't have any ports or anything to worry about.
Really, though, these nations are all directing their efforts towards a new French state - expansion is not something they are going to be really doing too much of.
Ah, okay, thanks for the clarification. In that case, though, where's the French nation? :L Feg 15:02, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
At this time, still "in negotiation." Lordganon 15:09, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
As in, shouldn't we get round to saying it's done? Feg 15:24, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
This is one of the reasons why I brought this up, no one was editing a major area of Europe, somebody really should be, either Louis or Yank should does something soon or I think they should be put up for adoption, so someone can do something with them--Smoggy80 17:51, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
As with Angola, putting them up for adoption at random like that is improper, at best.
Two of them are actually, at this point, articles by Tristanbreiker, who does attempt to keep things updated, somewhat - and the Basques and Andorra, the two in particular, are not involved in any of the French processes.
Feg, French unification is something for us to discuss separately from here. All we really know if that it would be a Federation, and that the claimant to the throne would be crowned.
Smog, atl, it's not a major area of Europe.
Looking into it again, don't know why I said anything about Yank. Heh.
Way I figure it, we discuss the talks in a different section, at least keeping Louis informed of events, and move forward somewhat.
By major area I did mean in size, not power base, 4,250,000 square miles (minus bombed areas) can be described as major area. --Smoggy80 09:51, April 5, 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the histories most of them haven't been edited for over a year--Smoggy80 21:33, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
All four were created by Lahbas, which more or less explains that.
So, I suppose the answer'd be "no," no one is editing them.
That being said, however, if anyone wanted to adopt them, they'd definitely need to ask Lahbas about it. He does still care, somewhat, about such things, and while he doesn't post, he does still log on to here and look at things. Heck, he even uploaded a few images three days ago.
I've left a message on his page, see what he says--Smoggy80 15:43, March 12, 2012 (UTC)
Still no answer from him, i'll give him till the beginning of April--Smoggy80 18:00, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
As i've still not heard anything can we open these up for adoption then?--Smoggy80 17:33, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
I have to oppose any thought of adding the banner to them. That being said, I'm open to people asking here, or preferably asking Lahbas himself, about it.
Is there anyway to bring about a small nation from the ashes of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida? I was toying with the name Federal Republic of America or something similar. I know that Montgomery is a total loss, but I was wondering about the formation of some sort of country, what kind, I suppose is to be determined. Any thoughts? Andr3w777 20:46, May 26, 2012 (UTC)
The region is already covered by survivor states, radiated areas, and abandoned spots.
Hey guys I don't know if you've been following but we (South and I) are currently doing the Presidential Primaries for the new United States. The current nominations for Republican candidates are Sarah Heath and Sam Brownback, whereas for Democratic nominations we have Ken Salazar and Johnathan Windy Boy. Remember that this is not who you personally prefer but who do you think the people of the Midwestern US would vote for in the ATL. If you guys are wondering, the current president is a Democrat. Arstartalk 17:14, August 18, 2012 (UTC)
South did not say you could do this. Moreover, you've got virtually no one listed here, have done this before any choices have been made for potential candidates, and have a dead person listed under the Democrats.
South did give me permission to make a poll, check on the US talk page. You are right about the candidates, though.
EDIT: I see where the misunderstanding comes from. Nevermind. Arstartalk 04:24, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
The only "misunderstanding" is that you, again, did something you weren't supposed to do. Lordganon
(talk) 04:31, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
Actually no, the "misunderstanding" was that South wanted me to wait until we had more potential candidates. Arstartalk 04:42, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
Shanty Towns/Trailer Parks
The question I have to ask is: Is it possible for America, and by extension the world, to be riddled with survivors living in shanty towns? Would it be possible for pre-Doomsday recreational facilities like campgrounds to transform into makeshift survivor communities? And would it be possible for these people to survive the long term? Yank 17:47, October 26, 2013 (UTC)
There would certainly be some out there. We know of a few of these having happened, such as in NW Florida and Slab City. No doubt that there is more.Lordganon (talk) 11:31, November 1, 2013 (UTC)
Changing the Main Map
I'd like to suggest a change to the main map, as I noticed that Lithuania and Courland seem to be reversed while I was brainstorming for what to do with Latgalia.
Karlsvognen (talk) 12:47, December 28, 2013 (UTC) Karlsvognen
New Country
Can I make a new country? Like new colorado? Please. - ShadowKnights1234 1/22/14 9:45 (EST)
Elaborate. Nothing preventing you making something, but it being plausible or not is a different story. Lordganon (talk) 10:43, February 5, 2014 (UTC)
Holy Russian Empire (And where I can found it!)
I wanted to make another survivor state- I know, I said I was done, but I've been trying to make a Holy Russian Empire on a TL that I don't own for quite some time now :D.
Anyway, the state would be fairly tiny.
Would any of the following towns work?
Serov
Syktyvkar
Ukhta
Velsk
Shenkursk
Any of those sound good? As far as I can tell- based on the 2012 map- none of those towns are occupied, and I doubt any of them would have been nuked. Serov and Ukhta have only about 100,000 people, Velsk around 25,000, Shenkursk barely 5,000. Syktyvkar is a bit bigger, with 235,000, but with a name like that...
Syktyvkar was nuked, and the rest are inside of Siberian territory.
For tiny states, Neftekamsk, Podosinovsky District, Luzsky District, Sokolsky District (Nizhny Novgorod Oblast), Sharyinsky District, Makaryevsky District, Manturovsky District (Kostroma Oblast), Velikoustyugsky District, or Nyuksensky District could work. Have a look on wikipedia for more on each location.
Could I please make a new state? I have a few ideas of where I could put it.
My first idea was the San Diegan Confederation. I live in San Diego, and pretty much every San Diegan would rather live here than anywhere else. I know some might be just crazy enough to try and live in their old homes. I know, it would be contaminated. It is believed that their are people living in Chernobyl. I'd bet there would be people trying to live in Julian or El Cajon within a dozen years of doomsday.
I have other ideas, but I will tell you after I hear what you say about this one.
Uhh- Chernobyl was just a nuclear leak, and a fairly minor one. San Diego would have taken multiple hits from megaton or above warheads. Nothing's left of the city, and the radiation would still be lethal within a few days in it's outskirts.
Now, perhaps if it were far enough out, say 20-30 miles away from the nearest blast, you could no doubt get a small nation.
Hmmm... I hadn't thought of that. Maybe the Channel Islands Confederation? I know the Chumash Republic controls the northern islands, but not some of the southern ones. based on my measurements, San Clemente and San Nicolas Islands would have been fine, but I don't know about Santa Catalina.
I think I'll try and make the Channel Islands Confederation. Who do I talk to about making these?
Yea, San Diego and its environs - more than the 20-30 miles, bet on closer to 70 - are toast. Slag. And the area is desert, or borderline desert. No survivors on a meaningful level.
San Clemente was likely the target of a low-yield device. Even if not, the area is not suitable for crops.
Basically, the area is entirely unsuitable for a state to have survived. The islanders would have either died, or fled to Mexico.
Africa is gigantic, unexplored, and open. Asia and North America have one or two open spots. South America and Australia are completely filled. Europe, well, might be space for a survivor state but it's going to be tiny.
Yeah, southern California is out, more or less. You've got to remember, most of it is only inhabited through modern methods, power, and mass irrigation. All are gone atl. And the coast is irradiated wastes, otherwise it would be habitable.
The eastern part of the Kola peninsula is more or less uninhabited. Land is swamps, forest, and tundra anyway.
There is always open areas. But, since the world is a big place, you'll have to narrow it down a bit as to a location before I can really give you ideas.
So, after analyzing the map, I have narrowed it down to a country in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nunavut (specifically, the Kitikmeot region [and possibly some parts of the southern and western Qikiqtaaluk region and the western parts of the Kivalliq region]), or what was Western China (not the part taken by Tibet or Siberia, of course). I'm not sure if the map I'm looking at is outdated, but at least one of these must be open.
On a completely unrelated note, how do you make a signature?
I can help with DRC- I own all the articles written there currently. If you're interested in that, I do have a state there that I'm stuck on what to do with- you can have it, if you want. Here it is.
About the sig, it's pretty simple- go to "preferences" and input something into the box there, then save.
If you want a proper template sig like mine, leave a message on my talkpage- this isn't really the place to go into a massive discussion about it.
That area of Nunavut is almost uninhabited. Really, the whole Canadian north is like that. Parts of the areas in question have also been explored - the only groups encountered have been tribal bands.
A nation in the Congo, not impossible.
A tiny state in that tiny gap in China is, in theory, possible. However... that is really close to the Siberians. Would be like lunch to them.
Really though, Unalakleet, give us an area of the world you'd be interested in, and we can give you ideas. The map can be rather deceiving.
Alright, I think I'll work on Kisangani. Thank you, GusnadGlory. I do plan to talk to you about a template signature. I'm a little busy at the moment, but I will work on it by Monday.
Lordganon, I was thinking an Inuit nation could exist up there. Even if there was only a few of them, they could find other Inuits and invite them into the country.
Also, after about 100 years, would the nuked cities still be contaminated? I mean, look at Hiroshima. The bombs would have gotten more advanced, but still.
The bombs are a lot more advanced, and a lot more were dropped than on Hiroshima. Maybe in 100 years things will have cleared up a bit, but right now were are only 31 years since doomsday. Tr0llis (talk) 16:52, April 19, 2014 (UTC)
Not at all realistic to have an Inuit state, Una. You're also forgetting that that area is virtually uninhabited even by them.
"Advanced" is not the right word - stronger is. Hiroshima was 16kt in size. Only the absolute smallest of the ones used on DD were of that scale, and those are passable by now - were within a few months, really. Battlefield nukes, the lot of them.
The strikes themselves, minimum 100kt. About seven times larger than Hiroshima, and giving off far more radiation. Biggest strikes, multi-megaton range. Lot of areas got several of these two types, and sizes in between.
The 100kts, couple decades still. The larger ones, range from many decades to never. The NYC area, for instance, will be millennia, at best.
Bomba, no. Bravo, not impossible. Really, though, we can't know. Lordganon (talk) 22:03, April 21, 2014 (UTC)
Country in Inner Mongolia Province in the former People's Republic of China
I've been eyeballing 1983: Doomsday for a little while and I plan to join in on the timeline. However, what I want to talk about is creating a nation within the Inner Mongolia Province within the former People's Republic of China. The government body within the regime of the nation (which will just be called Mongolian People's Republic) will be composed of members of the former Mongolian People's Party and former party members of the Communist Party of China that have survived.
The capital will remain in Hohhot (just like in OTL) but may be moved to Baotou, and the country will have an estimated population of about 21,200,000 (2014). I would like to know how I would be able to join this timeline. Any answer will be appreciated, thank you. Toţi în unu; Nihil Sine Deo
Your map interferes with some already existing nations, so the border would need to be changed. For one you intersect with the Manchuria Territory of Socialist Siberia. Mscoree (talk) 16:16, July 30, 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I only filled in portions of the map that weren't colored in, so I didn't know there was an already existing territory in that area. Toţi în unu; Nihil Sine Deo
...Which is why you need to look at more than the map first. Completely ignored the nukes and their effects, too. Lordganon (talk) 14:21, August 7, 2014 (UTC)
Also, I think the SS would have something to say about that. It would involve guns.
South Africa
.png){kind=link}
Flectere si nequeos superos- Acheronta Movebo! 22:30, January 29, 2014 (UTC)
Toţi în unu; Nihil Sine Deo