Talk:North America (1983: Doomsday)

Population

We may want to take this opportunity to finally establish what is the 2009 post-Doomsday population of North America. Mitro 17:24, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

I made the current population of North America my project this week. The population of canonical nations north of the Rio Grande is 20,175,753. That includes recently calculated populations for Aroostook and Assiniboia (using assumptions of bombed cities and refugees), and present day OTL populations for the Outer Banks, the Okanagan Confederacy and the Pasco Free State.

When you include Mexico (132,065,781) and Yucaton (2,750,000), the total population of North America is 152,241,534.

I can add the missing figures (the ones I have recently calculated) to the chart. If you want, I can figure in any migration into Pasco and the Okanagan Confederacy from areas bombed in Washington state and British Columbia. The Outer Banks were perhaps cut off by the blast in Virginia Beach, but they may have got some of those refugees as well. I have not include Elizabeth City (not yet canon, though mentioned in narrative), but I'm thinking that the "inner bank" may form a separate nation-state.SouthWriter 03:10, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Central America

This may be the right place to organize some kind of regional plan for Central America. This is the situation as of 1983:

• El Salvador, Guatemala, and Hondouras were all in states of civil war, in which US-backed dictatorial regimes were defending themselves against left-wing guerrilla movements.
• Nicaragua was also in civil war, with the combatants reversed: the Sandinistas had just deposed the US-backed dictator in 1979, and now the US was sponsoring the Contra guerrillas to re-overthrow them.
• Hondouras was just about a de facto US protectorate. The US had a number of bases for its own troops there, and from there trained and armed guerrillas to send into Nicaragua.
• Costa Rica's democratic government was intact, but the civil wars were hurting the economy and destabilizing the country with the flood of refugees and substantial Contra activity along the Nicaraguan border.
• Belize had the most uninterrupted history of stable democratic government as a British colony. It had only achieved full independence in 1981. Now, however, refugees from the wars were putting great stress on the country, especially given its tiny population. A number of refugees had just been resettled on vacant land near the capital.
• Panama was going through a period of instability since the death of its dictator Omar Torrijos in 1979. Manuel Noriega was not yet in control. The Canal Zone had not been sovereign US territory since 1979, but the US still had a significant military presence in the country.

So far, we know:

• The Contras, presumably in an act of desperation after the collapse of the US, brought the war into Costa Rica, where it tore the country apart.
• A Sandinista regime took over much of Costa Rica.
• The Nicaraguan Sanidinstas are still in power, thanks to Soviet aid.
• Contras (presumably allied with Moskito Indians) have kept the Nicaraguan government out of the southeastern coast lands.
• Panama was nuked.
• Guatemala has a leftist regime and funds rebels in Yucatan and Chiapas.
• Guatemala has occupied significant portions of Beize.
• Central America, overall, has not stabilized.

Some ideas / suggestions / proposas of mine:

• The refugees living in Belize felt shocked and betrayed at the Guatemalan invasion. They quickly became extremely loyal Beizeans and were key supporters of joining the East Carribbean Federation in order to get military aid.
• Hondouras was attacked, either by nukes or conventional weapons.
• Colombia sent soldiers into the Darien wilderness, and provided arms and training to the Kuna and Embara tribes, to defend its northern border from DD refugees. The region became a Colombian protectorate, and was later annexed and made an autonomous region. Colombia claims all of Panama as its historical territory.

I don't have any other ideas off the top of my head, but this can maybe start discussion. I think Central America should be handled like South America or the Midle East - make a plan that covers the entire region.

North America (moved from main discussion page)

Recently I proposed a revision of the history of West Texas and eastern Texas, which didn't receive as much of a response as I thought necessary for me to decide as whether to go ahead or keep as is.

My proposal is this: write out the isolationism of West Texas and have it join with eastern Texas and a group of survivor communities in south Texas, reuniting the state by 1995. Ongoing contact with Mexico would also consider a rethink of the APA article (perhaps one visit to the southwest where Bush sees that Texas is viable, and decides to allow it to choose its own fate. Also, a fly over of New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, north Texas and the bayous of Louisiana "confirm" that the rest of the nation is still a wasteland). Eastern Texas and West Texas would be obsolete, replaced by a Republic of Texas article, and I'd also go back and revise any Texas-related items in the WCRB Newshour pages.

Thoughts?BrianD 15:25, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds funky (that means its good, by the way)HAD 22:13, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

You're the only one so far who's commented. South has said he believes the two texases would have met up much earlier in the timeline. I may as well write up a proposal - I was waiting for feedback from everyone on the idea before I decided whether or not to proceed with the proposal. BrianD 02:17, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I like it a lot Brian and I encourage you to go for it. It has however got me thinking if the APA establishes contact Texas and had good relations with them wouldn't it give Bush & the APA hope for more survivor nations like Texas throughout the US. Also during the flyover Broken Bow in Oklahoma and some of the groups in Louisiana could be found. Also didn't the state government of Wyoming have contact with the government when they were in the Mount Weather facility. Wouldn't an expedition then be launched to see if anyone was left up there allowing them to find the NAU, Utah, Lincoln and other smaller survivor communities? This is just some food for thought and something I would like to explore with you. --GOPZACK 02:27, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Zack, thanks for the kind words. It affects canon for some significant articles, namely the APA and Mexico. It could affect the balance of power in the region, as Texas may be one of the most powerful nations in North America. Regarding the APA, the deal with Bush needs to be revisited anyway, even if Texas stays as is. (Hello Mitro) What makes the most sense to me is Reagan's advisors telling him to abandon the country, that everyone (including the people in the area and in Wyoming) would die, and their best bet was fleeing to the safest, most powerful, sympathetic ally: Australia. They knew there were survivors somewhere in the US, but the decision was made to abandon it anyway. What needs to be nailed down is why. I don't have an issue with having Reagan and Bush flee for Canberra (we should keep it the same), but we should figure out a workable, rational reason once and for all. I'd like to look at the other things with you as well. BrianD 02:33, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for keeping the part with Bush & Reagan fleeing to Australia. I think it had to due with the fact that the only state government they had sporadic contact with was Wyoming and that food, water and other necessities were running extremely low. I doubt it was just one factor that forced them to leave but rather combination of factors. I also don't see someone telling Reagan that "everyone" would die, be taken seriously. I would assume that Wyoming would have told Reagan what had been hit and all the other information they new about the area would have given them a reason to believe that a fairly stable government. I would also assume that somewhere in the Mount Weather facility there would be a report or two on the effects of a nuclear war with the USSR perhaps it would have detailed where possible survivors would flee and eventually settle along with estimates on casualties environmental damage and such. This report may very well have scared the shit out of Reagan & company pressuring them to leave for Canberra. --GOPZACK 02:48, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

No doubt they would have had plenty of data to work with. My contention is if the data told them the long-term prognosis for the U.S. was bleak, then why would Reagan stay? What could he do? Perhaps, Reagan may have thought they could do more for survivors with a base in a friendly nation rather than staying. BrianD 02:57, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

That would make sense but why not go to Mexico City, surely they would have known that a fair amount of Americans would have fled south to Mexico anyway. plus it is geographically closer to America. I'm not saying Australia is out of the question but why not send Reagan and HW Bush there and use George W. Bush as a coordinator of the APA's Mexican division along with whoever is the ambassador to Mexico at the time. --GOPZACK 03:11, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

That's the other thing - why Australia and not Mexico? Perhaps, it was thought Mexico would pose more of a threat to U.S. sovereignty, and Mexico would not be able to ensure that the APA would be able to operate sovereignly and with a reasonable amount of protection. Also, the APA in Australia is one of those things regarding this timeline (like the Gathering Order and the Benjamin Franklin traveling around the world) that's seared into canon - if you change it you better have a damn good reason to do so. BrianD 03:26, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I agree sir thats why I was thinking appointing George W. Bush to the position as the director of the APA's operations in Mexico. What are your thoughts on that idea? --GOPZACK 03:39, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

This assumes that the APA was keeping tabs on the refugees in the country. This also assumes that the APA has some ongoing treaty or relationship with the Mexican government. That is something you really need to ask Mitro. When I wrote Texas, and rewrote Mexico, I assumed that the APA had abandoned everyone in the former US to their fates. With canon as presently is, I would see Dubya as being a leader in the refugee community, having grown to a position of prominence in the business and political worlds (as a businessman), and perhaps considering a move back to Midland to run for Governor of West Texas in 2013. BrianD 03:55, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

If I may, I'd like to tell you guys what I thought was rather strange regarding the APA. I mean, lets say they for some odd reason don't stay in Mexico City and go to Australia. I can live with that. Abandoning Texas and leaving it without any direct control, although nominal rule could be set up in my opinion is not quite right.

Why would APA disband in this case? They also had Alaska and Hawaii. Don't get me wrong, Hawaii is a great article, but isn't it strange how they rather quickly grabed the chance to become independent? I mean sure, if they officially saw themselves independent from the USA in lets say 5 years after Doomsday, that would be ok in my book. I know they have their own culture and that's fine, but I think they, alongside Texas and Alaska, had an opportunity to stick with the American government.

And also, Alaska wanting to be independent is also quite peculiar. First they disregard APA, their own nations government, and after it disbands, they become an associated state of the ANZC? Sorry, I know most of this doesn't have anything to do with Texas, I just wanted to get this off my chest.--Vladivostok 10:28, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

See, this is why I've been kind of a dick all along regarding the increasingly "full" United States: suddenly we look around, and even though the details of most of our pages match up OK, the overall picture they present is radically different from that in the early pages, leaving us with what amounts to an enormous mess to clean up. Either the newer pages need to be brought in line, or the older ones do, and neither is going to be a whole lot of fun. An ounce of prevention, and all that. Hrmph.

If we want to jury-rig a solution, it's probably helpful to note that in the period 1984-1995 (the life span of the APA), most of the US was devastated, and the various republics that dot the landscape today either hadn't been founded yet, or were just beginning to take control of their safe zones. If we want to do a deeper fix that's not too difficult, we can nudge the dates in the republics' histories so that their rise to power occurred after 1995.

Alaska and Hawaii were indeed governed by the APA before 1995. They didn't seek independence (or Aussie-Kiwi association) until after it disbanded. Benkarnell 15:52, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I moved this down to fundamental issues since its likely whatever we decide several articles will be affected. Mitro 15:56, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know they were governed by the APA, but I was led to believe by the article that this leadership was a bit loose. Would it be so wrong to get Bush to govern the territories from Alaska? I mean they had territory on the mainland. With Texas and Alaska, it could retain its rule over parts of America. I didn't want to bring it up, but with so many little states and places around the United States surviving, including those we have yet to create, the question arises: Why did the APA disband in the first place? There are so many survivors in the Americas who would want to continue being a part of the United States and the President would pack up and leave?

I propose we keep the part where they flee, that is quite essential, but how about keeping the APA around until the present day? The skirmishes in Alaska with the USSR could serve to strenghten government control in Alaska, for example. This sounds radical, but I think future development of smaller countries should cease in the Americas, at least until we can take care of the basics. --Vladivostok 16:15, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Vlad. A surviving APA makes sense considering the "facts on the ground". After all, if the USSR (hit just as hard as the USA) survived, why not the APA? When the timeline was created, the assumption was that the USA, bar certain parts, was rendered uninhabitable. However, we now know this to be incorrect. Lets say the APA survives, with Texas, Lousianna and Wyoming included as members. Sound good?HAD 16:23, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Guys you are forgetting about QSS and QAA. The US disbanding has been part of canon since the beginning. Changing it should not be an easy decision, and it won't be because it would mean massive changes to dozens of articles. AS for the APA, why is it so hard to believe that they could not disband? They would be dependent on Australia financially and would only be governing a few small territories. The cost, plus the failure to bring the future MSP citiy states in line, could be enough to convince Bush to disband the APA. Not only that, but guys this is a dystopia, doesn't a nation failing fit into this TL just as well as it suceeding? I am leaning more toward Ben's suggestion that the younger articles involving North America should be reviewed and tweaked before we rewrite chunks of canon. Mitro 16:33, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I say we put it to a vote, since this timeline was created there has been an influx of new contributors that have brought an influx of new ideas for this timeline. The only logical solution is to vote on the APA's survival. For such a radical change to canon we must put it to a vote amongst all of those who have contributed to this great timeline. --GOPZACK 16:51, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the way polls work on Wikia makes them less then credible. They only track ip addresses, not user names. Thus if I really wanted to I could vote at least 4 times. That is why we only really use it for minor things, like voting on flags. Whatever the outcome of the vote is, it should not replace good old consensus establishing discussion. Mitro 17:00, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I know Mitro, but you have to admit that survivors in Alaska, Texas and Hawaii, which would be known to the USA pretty much off the bat would surely have some influence on the APA's decisions. But your comment about them being financed by the ANZC got me thinking. What about a government within a government? The APA survives, perhaps under a different name under the ANZC and comprises a loose confederation within the nation with the Pacific territories and Alaska under its nominal rule. That would lead to CRUSA being formed as a radical movement to unite the former USA and make Alaska, Hawaii and other Pacific islands free from ANZC rule. This is of course only a thought.

I realize it's a dystopia, but how many more communities will we find in the USA that have survived? I'll also add this option to the poll, if you don't mind.--Vladivostok 16:58, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I thought Texas not being isolationist is still only a proposal? We haven't even decided whether Texas would have contact with the APA so we shouldn't assume they would. That being said its already in canon that the APA government had major issues with the Hawaii and Alaska government, which is another factor to consider when it came to disbanding the APA. Also I removed the other option as editing the poll like that erases votes, lets stick with the first question and create a second one later. Mitro 17:04, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I feel like I'm yelling at you kids to get off my lawn... but I'm a little miffed at the idea that I should change everything I wrote just because a whole lot of other people chose to ignore it. I get that the TL should always be improving. But it's getting to be about every month that we go back to make one big, final change to our original premises... only to come back the next month. If we don't respect the existing work (with some reasonable flexibility), then we'll continue to go through this, over and over again. It may be that the current history as written is not the likeliest course of events... but since when does real history give us only the likeliest outcomes? Benkarnell 17:06, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Ben has a point. We have "canon" for a reason. It shouldn't change because people have new ideas, the new ideas should change to reflect established canon. I hate to say this but we have always told new users that if they can't respect canon then they should go somewhere else. Now I'm not telling any of you that you should leave, but I don't like the idea of slashing and burning whole articles just because they don't work because someone had a new idea. And to agree to do that by a simple majority vote seems wrong to me as well. Mitro 17:10, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I doubt anyone wants to go around "slashing and burning" whole articles but rathe tweak them to reflect the growing and diverse pool of ideas. --GOPZACK 17:14, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

But we are going to have to if we have the APA survive to the present day. The Timeline will have to be rewritten, plus the history on Hawaii and Alaska will have to be rewriten. Thats just a few articles that will have to be rewritten, not including Texas and the NAU (I think I remember someone saying they would be a part of the APA as well, at least the American parts). Mitro 17:25, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I meant no disrespect, just wanted to say what was troubling me these past months. My concerne is the seeming lack of patriotism or any real will of both the Alaskan and Hawaiian people, they didn't even blink when the APA was disbanded, maybe that would then at least need changing, to reflect some willingness by a minority of the people to stay within APA. I just added my opinion, once again I didn't mean to hastily change previous articles.--Vladivostok 17:16, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean any disrespect either to the framers of this timeline but if we truly are striving to make this as realistic as possible why would the APA just close up shop with as Vald said Alaska & Hawaii "didn't even blink when the APA was disbanded". I believe any changes must be done slowly and methodically. Let's not rush this & make sure we get it right. GOPZACK 17:23, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I think the real issue here is that people feel the disbanding of the APA has not been explained well. fine, we can work with that, but changing canon because people are unhappy with the current explanation seems like a hasty idea. Mitro 17:25, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

One explanation that might make sense is one that I think we've ignored mostly, though it has showed up occasionally. That is the idea that many Americans blamed the US (together with the Soviets) for the disaster and wanted to reject the old system as much as possible. The "psychological fallout" is hard to predict. But that could certainly be a factor in many places. Alongside patriotism, you might well see the precisely opposite feeling that the USA betrayed its people and failed to preserve world peace. This might be the case even in Texas, a state with something of a separatist streak anyway. Benkarnell 17:54, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Let us not also forget some of the already canon reasons that could lead to the APA disband: 1) Loss of western Alaska to Soviets, 2) Civil war in Hawaii, 3) Failure to establish APA presence in continental US/Crescent City Affair, 4) Expense of running the APA, 5) Fact that people can't tell the difference between APA and Australia/NZ, 5) Growth of independence movements in Hawaii and Alaska, and difficulty maintaining contact with interior and eastern seaboard of continental US. Mitro 18:08, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

You make good points, Ben and Mitro. How about a compromise: the APA, while it exsists, includes Texas and Lousiana. When it dispands, it is replaced with a "Confederation of American States", which seeks to continue the traditions and memories of the USA, as well as the constitution. Within the "Confederation Charter" there is a clause stating that if the citizens wish it to be the case, the USA can be restored. The CRUSA works as a political party within the CAS, seeking the restoration of the USA, or at least jioning the USA established in the midwest. Good idea?HAD 18:16, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Great discussion. I remarked briefly over on the surprisingly new APA talk page. I was directed here - but had a hard time find "here." Anyway, my points have been covered above. I am not sure that the APA need be changed, but I agree that its dissolution needs to be explained a little more. We had the chance, somewhat, last month as we were supposed to be working on the article about ANZC. However, "article of the month" is somewhat arbitrary, and what we need here is agreement on the why and how of the present situation. HAD, your suggestion of the CAS is strangely familiar -- sort of a reflection of the Confederation of Independent States of the former USSR, I think. As a citizen of a founding member of the short-lived CSA of the nineteenth century, I am quite comfortable with it's re-establishment in a slightly different form. Though I can sympathize with those who see the inconsistencies and unlikelihood of much of canon, I say let's let it stay largely unchanged. Let us give the orginal team a chance to explain the abandonment of the continental US, and the subsequent rise and fall of the APA, to best explain the present in this time line.

This is, after all, only one possible scenario -- not the worst, and far from the best -- in which we can work. If we want to begin fresh, or only make slight changes to the POD and form different scenarios, we are free to do so under the broader auspices of althistory.wikia.com. SouthWriter 19:07, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou, SouthWriter. I intentionally made the CAS seem like the CIS, because in a kind of ironic fashion, what happened to the USSR in 1991 happened to the USA in 1983, via numerous thermonuclear strikes. On a related note, i think historians ATL would consider the USSR to have won a phyrric victory in the cold war. I would now quotes Spock in Star Trek, but i've forgotten the quote.HAD 19:32, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

HAD you may be on to something here. Your idea is defiantly worth exploring. [User:GOPZACK|GOPZACK]] 20:12, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, GOP. Whats "GOPZACK" mean, anyway?HAD 20:15, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

We have a trend going here. Three of us agreeing on a possible re-formation of American states into a union of sorts. Do you think Kentucky would go along, Zack?

And I think I know, but I'll let Zack answer for himself about his name. --SouthWriter 20:24, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

For my username so we don't get too off topic I wrote a little blurb about it on HAD's talk page regarding what my username means for those who want to check that out. As for Kentucky I can say with a good degree of certainty that not only Kentucky but the other areas I have jurisdiction over like Broken Bow, Hot Springs, Cave City, Cape Girardeau, Joplin, Bloomington, State College, Oil City, & the Republic of South Florida would all be likely candidates to join this confederation. GOPZACK 20:35, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Intresting. So they'll be a Southern CAS, a middle NAU, a western "Pacific Union" consisting of the MSP, Chumash and perhaps a "civillised" Santa Cruz, along with a Confederation of New England. Which reminds of the game "brokern union".HAD 20:41, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, HAD, I think the CAS would be a continuation of the PUSA eastward. And I like the thought of the Confederation going all the way up to State College in the former Pennsylvania. Perhaps the Virginian Republic and the United Counties of Delmarva will join if the Confederation is "loose" enough. I tend toward the Confederation myself (as caretaker of the Piedmont Republic). I can't speak for my neighbors to the north, but the rogue states next door will probably be troublesome. SouthWriter 20:50, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of a CIS/CAS. Are you thinking that this is a (relatively) old organization - 1990 or so? It's definitely a possibility, and it would solve some of the problems we have of showing the Americans as constantly helpless victims. It need not have any connection to (or even awareness of) the APA in Australia. Actually it might be better if it didn't. But it could still have some connection to surviving members of the federal government who happened to be away from Washington at the time of impact.

Oh, and I forgot to mention it before: IMO the (re-)discovery of the Republic of Texas was one of the more compelling storylines in this entire project, and I'd be sad to see it go. Benkarnell 20:58, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I like the CAS sort of replaces the USA.HAD 21:11, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I know this discussion has gone in a different direction since I last spoke, but I'd just like to say that I look forward to the further explanation of the interaction between the APA and territories it was aware of until its disbanding in 1995. Oh, and I like the idea of a CIS like entity in the former US, but I'd see it originate from a stronger government, so an organization encompasing the entire US wouldn't be a possibility in the ninties. I know it shouldn't have a strong conection to the APA, but why not let it start in the Pacific with the already known countries, and then sweep through America. So countries like Vermont, Alaska, Texas, maybe Hawaii, Superior and Puerto Rico could be early members as well.--Vladivostok 21:19, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, Vlad. HAD 21:29, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

This is becoming too much like a chat page this afternoon. I tried to insert something two times within as many minutes only to be knocked off! Maybe we ought to move discussions like this to the Facebook page. Here is my idea -- a third try:

In much the same way as the CIS "replaced" the USSR, the new Confederation would preserve the history of the alliances of the states involved, while severing some of the old political bonds that proved to be burdensome. And Ben, it was most certainly a fact that there were thousands of federal employees and "officials" all over America in 1983. Each county has its federal offices, as far as I know. Many counties have federal courthouses or other "Federal Buildings" (remember Oklahoma City). I am sure that there is at least a federal office in every state capital of OTL. These employees may even have a contingency plan in place in case of a disaster that destroyed Washington, DC and most of the federal government along with it. I'd be surprized if there was not such a plan.

I forsee, though, that in TTL these officials would not be automatically "in charge." However, they might be influencial enough to actually guide the direction of a Confederation forming, as you say, in the early nineties. If the CAS formed early - after the percieved abandonment by those who escaped Washington but before reconnection with the West Coast by the APA - we could have some way to explain the "independent" movement of the member states so far. And about the hardy souls that set up the "Republic of (East) Texas" in the shadow of the ruins of what once was the political center of the Lone Star State -- I say it is a sure sign of the rugged individualism that would make the CAS a confederation of great influence in the years following the dissolution of the APA.

So, the stronger government Vlad envisions is in place, as part of the former federal system. However, communications would be very limited, and these federal employees would not e as organized in every state. Perhaps the early known states would be the ones to start the "movement" as they began to make contact with the APA. The PCUSA, though not "Pacific" is still close enough to being there to allow for a working relationship. The two Texases, then, would certainly have contact with both the APA and the PCUSA, in that order.SouthWriter 21:43, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

May i suggest that the "Confederation Charter" be similer to the Articles of Confederation, the states together in a Customs, Trade, Military Union, etc, and with the same values, but no power over each other. HAD 21:36, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I don't have facebook. Sad, I know. Goodnight chaps. Charade you are!HAD 21:57, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not being here to participate earlier, and for not being able to stick around much today - life calls, and today is a busy day. But I wanted to speak up.

Texas, I hope, doesn't get overlooked - I didn't intend to create such an uproar over the APA! I am with Mitro and Ben; the APA should stay as is. Either you have to do that or overhaul it completely, and this goes back to a point I made with SouthWriter some time ago; either you accept certain things as is, or you revert to a cycle of constantly revising and rewriting and you never create. And if one person is satisfied, another person is not. All I asked for was to look at the APA in regards to Texas, which I am interested in revising.

As far as the APA, I would go along with the reasons listed above for its dissolution plus:

• the perceived devastation of the United States
• government records regarding the predicted results of a nuclear war
• belief that radiation, famine and violence would decimate the population of the US to almost nothing

Government, as we know, sometimes gets it wrong.

US-Mexican relations might have led Bush, Reagan and their advisors to believe they would be safe, and more secure, in Australia. Would Mexico really be more sympathetic to a US government in exile or look for the opportunity to kill Reagan and Bush, and take remaining US military and economic assets for its own? That may be why Reagan headed for Canberra.

The reasons for the US government abandoning the homeland for Australia need to be examined, I agree. BrianD 22:37, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

So who's gonna create the page for the CAS and the Confederation Charter?HAD 12:33, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Good "morning," HAD. I hope you slept well. I will look into tweeking the Articles of Confederation in preparation for writing in the Confederation at some point in the history of the PUS. It will be up to concensus as to whether we rename the nation from the beginning or make it something that came up at the constitutional convention this year. I think it should be part of a campaign to make "America" at the same time "great" and free to continue on as a confederation rather than a union. However, the "North American Union" may have to be renamed (since it implies more unity than the main nation would have within its own borders). SouthWriter 13:52, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

As the author of both the PUS and the NAU I'm not sure I support changing the history of my articles for this Confederation. You guys are still failing to grasp the principles behind QSS and QAA. Unless this Confederation proposal can fit into canon, the only thing you can do is to have it be a creation of the present day or near future. Furthermore the NAU is an organization between American and Canadian survivor communities (specifficallly PUSA, P-Canada, Lakotah and hopefully soon Utah). It has nothing to do with any continuation of America.

IMO the idea of having most of the American survivor states into some continent wide Confederation is implausible. That being said I have tried to do the same thing (hence why I created the NAU and PUSA) but I tried to work within canon. My plan was to have PUSA declare itself to be the successor of the US this July 4th. Utah would also be joining the NAU this year and I planned to discuss with other edutors the possibiliies of different states joining. I fell this is the more logical path to a reunification of the US, without having to change canon.

Finally isn't there already a "Confederation"? Doesn;t the Dixie Alliance fall under this category? Mitro 14:09, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Mitro, I was getting ahead of the curve. Re-reading what HAD wrote, I see that he wanted to replace the APA with a CAS. That pre-empts both the PUS and the NAU. My idea was, as you say, a document decided on in the constitutional convention this year. I think this leaves room for the PUS to escape the presumptive, and somewhat arrogant, claim that it is the heir of the historical entity that was the United States of America (1776-1996). The history as written (QSS) has a single, sparsely populated, state going to war with Native Americans, and then convincing surrounding states, or parts of states, to join it as the presumptive "PUSA." By now, though, that claim is totally untenable. The introduction of the Articles of Confederation to the nine states this spring would be a legitgament way to become a respected nation again. These states, more than many in the east, would be of an "independent" mind anyway. The Articles would extend invitations to other American states, including any in Canada not already committed to the Canadian Remainder Provinces, the chance to join the Confederation. The government in Torrington (city/dstrict to to be renamed?) would take these states under care, but would leave room for peaceful dissolution of the federation between any or all of its members. Nothing need be rewritten, and this will add "meat" to the prominent survivor states in the plains.

The "Dixie Alliance" is not a political confederation, but a military alliance with visions of grandeur (of VR mostly). The military takeover of Jackson still needs to be examined by LoN for its appropriateness. Having overwhelmed the city with force, the Alliance army still claims 451 "casulties and losses" - nearly half as many as the caused to Jackson. I was not comfortable with that story line from the start, but it is now "canon" (though the page for the war is still only a proposal). But that is a discussion for another section. SouthWriter 14:56, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Technically the Jackson war is not canon, neither is the state of Jackson canon. Both articles are still proposals and though some have written in what has happen on other canon articles, that does not make it canon. But that is for another discussion. If you are still not comfortable with that story line than I suggest you bring it up in there respective sections above.

Maybe you are correct that Articles of Confederation for the PUSA would make more sense, but the idea of other states joining immediately thereafter would be unlikely, especially those in the east. The NAU would also not change its structure based on what happens in one of their member states (especially since I doubt Lakotah, P-Canada or Utah would be interested in joining the revised PUSA). I feel that no matter what PUSA evolves into, the NAU will remain as an option for any states not interested in joining PUSA. Mitro 15:09, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Hang on. What i had in mind was the NAU joining the CAS as a member state. I am all for the NAU. HAD 15:19, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

And that is what I am objecting too. I don't believe the CAS is plausible as HAD and others have suggested. Furthermore the NAU is an organization made up of 3 seperate nations. I don't think an organization can join another organization. Mitro 15:25, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I thought the CAS would be more of a forum between North American nations, not a nation in itself.--Vladivostok 15:31, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

However the CAS idea ends up, we have to accept that there are a few "knowns":

-In the 1980s, most governments and other forces for social cohesion did not extend beyond the local level. States and republics and other large structures were built up gradually over time.

-Some people in Australia claimed to be the legitimate government of the USA. They based this on continuity with the Executive Branch (George Bush was sworn in as POTUS) and the military (the "Gathering Order" in which US Navy ships were tracked down and brought to Australia). Whether this was indeed the "real" USA is an open question: obviously, a nation is more than a president and a military. The APA in Canberra was recognized by the Pacific territories and surviving state governments in Hawaii and Alaska, but apparently by nobody in the "Lower 48".

-In 1992 some emerging state governments decided they would re-create the USA. They formed a federal government, which later (1997) entered a loose confederated relationship with a similar federation in Canada, and still later (2004) admitted the Lakotah separatists into the same relationship.

-So, attempts to preserve or revive the USA occurred in the Pacific and the Mountain West. They could well have taken place elsewhere as well. No reason others would not try. But the above storylines should be taken as a given. In fact, the idea of two (or more) rival visions of what the "new USA" should look like is something pretty interesting, I think!

Benkarnell 15:53, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

My two cents: If the CAS is an attempt at a North American League of Nations - I could see value to it, but I don't think it would get much traction - there's so little contact at present between the various nations. Only in the last five years has any sort of consistent contact been had by Utah, PUSA and the NAU.

If the CAS is meant to supersede the PUSA and NAU, I would have to shoot it down - the NAU and CAS might be rival organizations, but I think that the NAU, as far as Utah and many are concerned would be the reliable entity. In short, I think it's an interesting idea, but it conflicts with QSS as it is currently presented and throwing out the other existing canon doesn't make sense. I think Ben's suggestion of making it a rival entity would be a more valid presentation. Speaking for Utah, who's only tentatively approaching the NAU, I don't know that they would be easily swayed to some other, unknown entity. Louisiannan 15:57, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a rival in the bad sense, either; it could simply be an alternative. It could be regional in scope, based perhaps around Texas and some of its neighbors to the north and east. And if (if) Texas did have some contact or knowledge of the US government in the Pacific, the CAS could have been an answer to its dissolution. "If they're not going to do it, we will" sort of thing.

And it sounds like it might be a looser organization still than the NAU - mainly something to keep the American spirit alive. In that case, if it expands I can definitely see Hawaii and Alaska and maybe even the Provisional-USA (Wyoming) and some of the old Territories joining up. Benkarnell 16:58, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any "competing organization" with the NAU, but rather a restructuring of the present PUSA. As I wrote above, the presumption of a single state (Wyoming) to become the sucessor of the historical USA will probably not float in the court of world opinion. Though the LoN is younger than the NAU by a decade, and the PUSA is still older than the NAU (having formed three years before the dissolution of the official continuing government), the fact that the LoN has not accepted the presumptive government is telling. In fact, as observor status, the NAU stands in for its three member states.

The PUSA has met (or is meeting) this year to decide its course. I am only suggesting that it not just "drop" the provisional status of its government, but rather change the structure to a confederation as HAD has suggested might have been done at an earlier time. No re-writing of canon is necessary. And the nation will be established in its own right -- nine states, with invitations to any other American states to join at their own will and in their own time.

As a land-locked nation, the USA, or the CAS, would be at a big disadvantage, even to Alaska or Victoria, in any international relations. I would hope that whatever comes of the young nation, it might expand by agreement with neigboring northern Oregon (not a state as yet) and the MSP, to obtain a port on the coast. Now, its only waterway is the Missouri River that flows through member state Montana down to the Mississippi River and the Commonwealth of Kentucky. SouthWriter 17:18, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

The idea of the PUSA becoming the CAS sounds sensible. May i suggest that the "Confederation Charter" be stronger federaly then the Articles of Confederation, but leaving the states lots of power. In that fashion, the states retain there identity, while the confederation does not become inpotent. HAD 18:03, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

On a slightly related issue: while it exsisted, would the APA include the then "State of West Texas"?HAD 18:47, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

The APA was the "American Provisional Administration," and claimed authority over any known survivors in the former USA. It is not clear if communication between the APA and Mexico was adequate enough to even know about West Texas. According to canon, the only contact the APA ever had with the "lower 48" states was with the disorganized MSP. The mission of that exploratory journey in 1991 was to make contact with the world at large rather than the US only. SouthWriter 19:27, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

The PUSA was not just one state - it was several. Wyoming was the most powerful early on... or the most vibrant, if you prefer. But I didn't think it was ever anything other than a federation. And in the early 90s, those Westerners would have been concerned with anything but the court of world opinion: as far as they knew, there was no world anymore. They were trying to preserve or revive US ideals, certainly, but my impression first and foremost is that they simply wanted to survive. As time went by, of course, it turned out that they were the only (or at least the biggest) entity to take on the mantle of the USA. But the P-USA page, as written, describes a state designed to work for the people in that time and place, and I think it does a good job of it. Abstract questions like "are we the 'real USA' were probably far from people's minds for most of its history, but are clearly being raised today.

I see what you're saying, though, about the implications of dropping the "Provisional". In that case it WOULD be making such a claim, and would be bound to offend others. And it would have better luck expanding as a confederation than under their current structure. But I really do not see the P-USA scrapping their constitution in order to embrace other communities, since it has worked so well for them. It's got the NAU, which is certainly not "American" and makes no claims to be such... an "all-American" confederation would probably have to come from outside the P-USA/NAU structure, and I'd see the P-USA as one member among many. Benkarnell 19:31, April 6, 2010 (UTC).

It is hard to see how the basic "US Constitution," with its centralized federal government, has served the PUSA very well in the past 17 years. As you say, it is a loose confederation at best, with maybe two strong states (Lincoln and Wyoming). Present "Idaho" is a joke, and the two states pushed through a young congress have yet to prove themselves. The weaker states may need a strong federal government to continue to exist, but it is not clear that they have that. SouthWriter 19:51, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Well, the PUSA did adopt a constitution strongly based on the old US one, but we don't know what precise changes they made. And many aspects of US government - especially the more "centralizing" aspects - developed outside and beyond the written constitution. When it was adopted, the states were much smaller and more autonomous, and the federal government's presence, while strong in the territories and a few other areas, was less than it is today in the age of the IRS, Federal Reserve, Department of Health and Human Services, etc. etc. I think a bunch of little states could work quite well within the framework of the US Constitution. Benkarnell 19:59, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Ben, the constiutution as written, before the imposition of the American Civil War, was well written and suited the states well. If the constitution of the PUSA was adopted with only the first 12 ammendments, then I think it would probably have worked well. Ammendments since then had worked toward a stronger federal government. Citizenship and voting rights would have been written in to alter the original consttitution's obsolete language. Political decisions such as how a Senator is elected and the terms and succession of the president could likewise be written into the body of how government works. We all know that the federal income tax was a bad idea pushed on the public. That means half the "living document" is unnecessary if the new one is written to take later contingencies into account. SouthWriter 20:32, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Other than income tax, which amendments actually increased federal power? Amendments 13-15 were about extending full citizenship rights to black men; 17, 19, 23, 24, and 26 similarly extended the voting franchise to new groups; 18 and 21 cancel each other out; 21, 22, and 25 are mostly about governmental technicalities; and 27 is moot because it wasn't part of the US Constitution in the 80s. I don't know how the pUSA would choose to tax itself, given the likely prevalence of a barter economy, but it can't depend on import duties, either, and it has to find tax money somewhere. Maybe they could follow the example of the Dutch Republic and require the states to contribute a set percentage of the federal budget, rather than tax directly. The other amendments would probably be incorporated into the main text rather than tacked on at the end. Anyway, the point still stands that the growth in federal over state power comes from custom and court precedent, not actual changes to the document - and the pUSA could preserve a high level of state autonomy without changing a word. Benkarnell 20:45, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think I said about the same thing, though indicating that I was of the opinion that the amendments for the most part have tended toward a centralized government. Of course, the original constitution itself was written to give the federal government greater control than a federation of sovereign states strictly required. Without a strong federal government, the new nation could not have taken over the continent. It bode badly for the native inhabitants, in fact. Now, this new nation face with the unlikelihood of expanding by force, must instead accept a new construction -- one that once again has a central government as an overseer of sovereign states. In short, the constitution must ge true to its original form -- especially the tenth ammendment. SouthWriter 21:27, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I missed all of this but life calls unfortunately. The more I think about it the PUSA in the west should just drop the "P" proclaiming themselves to be the successor to the United States. In the northeast the New England Confederation in the central region, in the South the Dixie Alliance will evolve into more then just a military alliance. Eventually certainly not this year but eventually a loose confederation between these blocs could be feasible. Due to local identities that have been formed the old US constitution could be changed to have 5 presidents that are voted in and out on different term periods. The vice president is the president of the senate and they are voted separately. Thus all local concerns are better addressed.

Before any of this the PUSA for lack of a better term needs to get their "shit" together meanwhile the Dixie folks needs time to expand, I may alter the history of the Dixie Alliance to speed up the process. --GOPZACK 19:45, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

A cunning plan, my lord. As cunning as a fox who got a PHD in cunning from MIT last friday. HAD 20:00, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

So who else agrees with GOPs idea, beacause I do! (I think the system of states' rights v. federal goverment should remain unchanged (should be same as OTL) in the USA constitution) HAD 12:43, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

I think that any government in North America that seeks to expand with a federal system that impedes its individual states form acting basically in an autonomous manner (as they have come to expect after twenty years) is doomed to failure. The taste of freedom has been sweet, even amongst oppressive regimes, and will such freedom will not be given up lightly. I know it may seem that I am pro-CRUSA, but what I actually see in TTL is a Confedearation of states contractually joined for the greater security and prosperity of the whole continent. I don't know how many states might join the (P)USA (or CAS, whatever is decided), but I would hope that an expanded NAU might one day encompass all of the former USA and Canada. Mexico, on the other hand, probably would not fit in this paradigm. SouthWriter 14:47, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Outdated Map

How about an update of the map? I know this page is just a synopsis of all the work we are doing on the continent, but at least the map can show the present state of affairs. SouthWriter 14:50, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

I have also noticed, that on the map, there are many new canon nations within the U.S. that have not since been updated into the map. (Republic of Keene?) There are also others that have been either absorbed or ceased to exist. (Wasn't Cave City annexed by Kentucky?) Another thing is, why does Canada Remainder Provinces rule only half of an Arctic Island where there are, at best, like 10 people? I think it's time to actually look at certain places and think on what the outcome, such as the CRP controlling all of the Arctic Islands, and maybe an "east-ward expansion" of the PUSA. Arstarpool 19:47, April 7, 2010 (UTC)