Alternative History

Shouldn't you link Lincoln to the Republic of Lincoln, and not the provisional US state of the same name?

Yankovic270 23:47, April 6, 2010 (UTC)


Actually, Mitro, the link should be to the PUS, and not to Lincoln, a state of that nation. However, it should not matter whether the far-away, geographically separated Republic of Lincoln recognizes the new state at all. SouthWriter 04:44, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

And Yank, what's with the yelling? SouthWriter 04:44, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

My bad, misread the article. Also South that wasn't Yank. If you check the history another user added that text all in caps. Mitro 19:02, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

It was that new guy Ocelot9011. When I want to give emphasis to what I'm saying I use bold print, not maladroit all-capitalized print. Yankovic270 19:23, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Kudos for the $50 word, Yankovic. I thought I was the only one who bandied them about. The "shouting" didn't seem like you. It left me a skosh surprised. And good catch. I fixed the link, as you may have noticed. Louisiannan 19:29, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Break-away state?

Suggested Borders

The area claimed for Cascadia is included in the settlement of the north desert by Utah. The annexation was by popular vote of the settlements there. The area north of there, though, is open for expansion and development by the tiny state of "Idaho." SouthWriter 16:07, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

I'll make a map to clarify - in my mind's eye, it wasn't part of North Deseret - generally the nuked zone of Mountain Home AFB / Boise was the western delineator (of Deseret). The northeastern corner of Idaho's pan is the part that is PUSA Idaho. Louisiannan 16:28, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Here's the map - - - ->

OK. I see. You meant that the nuked zone was the EASTERN delineator of Cascadia. I had clicked through to the OTL equivalent and found the area southeast of your proposed state. I like how you have extended Lincoln over into Washington state. I had figured that the land once claimed by the Spokane raiders would end up as part of Lincoln, but I had not written it into the article yet. Meanwhile, I submit that the orange section up to Idaho County go to the state of Idaho. Heck, in the spirit of good will, I think Lincoln would be willing to cede all of "Idaho county" to the TTL Idaho. It has some good farm land, and is historically considered part of the panhandle and thus "Lincoln," but this is not about territory so much as it is about freedom. In fact, while it's at it, the state of Lincoln should relinquish any claim over areas in Walton county, OR as well! Cascadia deserves that corner of the state. SouthWriter 17:46, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Cascadia pushed for recognition with the PUSA and NAU, would they be given any claim to territory in Orange? Not that they'd want it, per se, but just wondering. Louisiannan 19:32, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at the map I have some concerns as to how it impacts the Sierra Nevada Union. I realize I have not been able to post a map for the SNU yet, however I had stated my borders included all of Nevada down to Route 6 in the south and some portions of California. If I understand the map, it shows a chunk of the eastern SNU as having been absorbed into Cascadia who gained independence in 2005 where as the SNU has been a functioning nation since 1983. I honestly do not see this logically occurring; especially given the SNU would be touchy about their borders given past experiences. I ask that any future maps be redrawn to reflect this. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 17:23, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Fx, the area in Nevada, according to this map of "proposed" boundaries, shows Utah encroaching on part of Navada, not Cascadia. Lou has misread the original map to include too much of the corner of the state. In reality, the overflow into Nevada should only be into part of Elko county (if at all). SouthWriter 17:46, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
Fx - from a logistics standpoint, maintaining all the territory of barren Nevada would be hard pressed, especially for a country reduced to functioning on horses. Lots of area to police, lots of lawlessness. What I mean to imply by the claim was that these cities felt more allegiance to Utah, which was closer, which had traded with them, and which had frankly kept them alive more than the SNU has done - just due to the fact that the population centers of the SNU are some 3 or more DAYS from these outlying communities. Ely, Nevada is a lot closer to being a part of Utah than it is to Reno - just from a logistics viewpoint alone.
Utah, on the other hand does have internal combustion and functional refineries and oil fields - enough for the government to maintain control over what would otherwise be barren, lawless areas.
And South - I actually made the original maps. Louisiannan 18:23, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
I'm cool with that, Lou. But this version is a close up, and placed over maps with counties on it (like all my maps are). The one in the article on Utah is a wide view map that does not go as far down on the map as does this one. I tend to agree with you. The SNU is a union between counties in western Nevada and southeastern California. Proximity rules in the building of nations after doomsday. SouthWriter 18:38, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine, FX, to have a competing claim to the area, just as Utah has competing claims with the PUSA for parts of Wyoming that are much closer to mechanized Utah and not separated by otherwise barren lands. In the end, though, I think that Utah should run that area, as I said, because of logistics. And South - I think you've stated the rule for this Timeline that often gets overlooked - proximity rules. Especially when we don't have the technology to run things. Louisiannan 18:41, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

I understand the points being made, however I get the impression there might be something of a misunderstanding about the SNU I need to clarify. I can understand why this might be, given I am still filling in parts of the article. As I stated the SNU incorporates parts of the 19th Century, however, it does not mean it exists at that level anymore than Utah. Keep in mind northern NV was not struck and the state government and its infrastructure were still intact. In fact, the governor went out of his way to establish contact with areas all the way to the state border north, south, and east. As such, residents would know they were still there and functioning. I could see maybe a town or such on the border going over to Utah, especially if they were mostly Mormon, but nothing more than that. Keep in mind while UT was reorganizing the SNU government already existed. As to geography, when I first started my article, I was aware the map showed a small tip of the state under UT control. Since I felt it was inconsequential, I did not, and still don’t, see it worth contesting. As to land, just because it is called the SNU does not mean it is only based around that region. I chose the name based on the original name of the region, i.e. NV. Something else important to note, NV possessed oil and natural gas fields at the time and more were later discovered. In fact, the natural gas they took from the ground according my research was able to supply electrical needs for the state and as such coal was not used. This said, enough was available to operate motor vehicles. My feeling is, as I recently stated in my article, was that fuel would be maintained for necessary areas and horses might be relied upon for routine travel. I recently posted the section on the SNU economy and will doing the same for the military soon, which might help clear up any misunderstandings. This said, my original point still stands. Thanks. --Fxgentleman 19:35, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

FX - I hadn't understood that SNU had been so untouched by DD - like the SNU, UT wasn't so much organizing as asserting its control. My understanding of the SNU has been that the population center has been the Sierra Nevada communities - and while they may claim the state laying to the East, I would imagine that the influx of Californians post Doomsday would've been terribly, terribly taxing to any sort of attempts at government - and that if the SNU really had any ambitions for the state of Nevada, they would only be recently (read: within the last 5-10 years) been asserting them.

Moreover, aside the silver, I don't know why the SNU would want Nevada - it's a blasted desert, and they'd have more luck finding supporters among the various communities of the mountains of California, down toward the central valley - more people = more troops & more foragers = more ability to sustain a nation in a very hostile social climate with ravening barbarians to all sides (think Santa Cruz as a tiny example).

Are you saying that SNU has natural gas vehicles? I think that's a great idea, but Natural Gas Vehicles would require a steep technology curve, especially given that CNG vehicles haven't been that prevalent in the US prior to Doomsday. If the SNU has them, bully, says I, but they're going to be a very modern thing, now that SNU can focus on peacekeeping in the region rather than survival.

Keep in mind, this is a dystopia - things aren't going to be peachy. The only reason that Utah survived as well as it did is that it's surrounded by desert on two sides, high mountains on two others, and the major cities near to it that could've sent refugees were blocked by these and decimated by nuclear strikes.

Utah had very strong rail lines, rolling stock and a huge source of coal that it could rely on without a significant technological change, which enabled it to remain largely cohesive - coupled with a very strongly unifying majority religion, something that other places didn't have.

In short, I think that if the SNU wants to claim the whole of Nevada, they sure can, but I really don't think they'll have the wherewithal to hold it at present. I think a polite negotiation might be in order at this point, and very likely, Utah would hold a referendum to the few communities in the area - and happily let the SNU send observers to see the results. Louisiannan 20:22, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

I apparently gave a mistaken impression in my earlier comments, having just read your thoughts. I did not mean to imply the SNU has natural gas vehicles, which I agree would be downright goofy given the stage of technology at this time. I would put money on Australia or the Middle East for that. What I was trying to say, was given there was drilling and production of oil in NV I believed it was logical they would be able to convert it to gasoline like UT is doing with their oil wells to the south. This would mean energy for designated vehicles. In regards to natural gas, my research turned up the state has been using their own deposits to power their power plants and as such, do not use coal.

As for the rest, I guess the best way to explain my thoughts is this. I have visited NV a number of times over the years and in fact will be going back next month to the northern area for two weeks. I have had a chance to see things close up and get a feel for the region. This is what inspired to look into doing this article and research the feasibility, especially since I had read through the other articles and got the gist everyone was kinda writing this area off as real estate this side of Hades which did not make any sense to me. My approach was to fill in another blank area and make the argument for adjustment as we have seen elsewhere. That said, NV had few sites targeted for Doomsday, the primary being Las Vegas. I felt it was logical this would be destroyed with one or two others in the southern part of the state. Given the strikes and fallout from CA, I figured this was an area NV could lose since it is mostly blasted desert. They would have a better chance concentrating in the north where everything was intact, such as roads and rail lines; a functioning state capital; an agricultural/animal base to work from; and energy deposits. As for contesting territory, I have say I find it illogical the state government, since it was functioning, would not want to keep their borders (i.e. state boundaries) intact from the get go since in essence this is their soil. I imagine the SNU would have troops posted on their borders which would be encountered by UT expeditions exploring the region years after DD. My thought process is the SNU would be aware of UT and the MSP and they as well and there might be some contact. Otherwise, I would see the SNU staying in their borders and minding their own business. My apologies for the lengthy discourse here, but I hope this helps to elaborate. I you have any further questions, please let me know on the SNU discussion page. I will be filling out more of the article soon, so it should help to give you idea where I am going. Thanks. Fxgentleman 01:52, April 8, 2010 (UTC)


What is the value of the "pine"? And is this named after the tree, or should we pronounce it as "pin-ay" with an acute accent (right leaning, like in a contraction but over the 'e'). Of course, you have to use special characters (Alt+0233) to type that correctly: like so, é!

If we pronounce it "pin-ay" (piné), we could let it be the basic unit, approximately equal to OTL "penny" (pen-ee), which to the untrained ear may even sound like piné! Just a random thought. :-) SouthWriter 20:00, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Good question. I had envisaged it like pine tree, because of the pines associated with Cascadia. (You can also do it with Alt+130). Louisiannan 20:41, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
GOVERNMENT: Hey, i was just wondering if you will add the structure of the Cascadian Government (i.e. governors, legislatures, term limits of not, etc.). I reccomend using the Idaho Governemnt as a template. (P.S. I'm sorry about writing in the Currency section. I'm new at this stuff, and I don't know how to make a new section) A Wikia contributor 15:49, January 9th, 2011 (EST)


The best I can figure, the counties that would end up in Cascadia, given the 1980 figures and a 1% per annum growth, would render a population of about 175,000 people. Does that sound about right? SouthWriter 18:06, August 26, 2010 (UTC)


With all of its surrounding neighbors beng members of the NAU, would Cascadia join any time in the near future? It has been a while since any nation joined. Arstar talk 04:55, July 27, 2012 (UTC)

...Read around before asking things, Arstar. They are a member, just hasn't quite been written onto the article. Really, it has been on the map as being a member for quite some time now.

Lordganon (talk) 07:50, July 27, 2012 (UTC)