Talk:Nuclear Apocalypse

CHINA IS OUR ALLY. TAIWAN IS NOW ON GOOD TERMS WITH CHINA. CHINA HATES NORTH KOREA. Arstarpool 19:41, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should re-think this story alittle bit before you do much.--Sunkist- 21:19, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Please, Arstarpool, no "SHOUTING." And all three of your objections are debatable. China is the a very large Communist nation, and even now has let it be known that the US had better not aid Taiwan (ROC) or risk retaliation. And though China dislikes North Korea due to the immigration problem at the border, the government of China still agrees with the philosophy that keeps the NK government in power.

By the way, I can assume that you have zapped this new guy with a "Delete" nomination (though not using proper protocol). I "fixed it" with "Delete" in the place of "Deletion," but you will have to go sign it and give a reason before it is taken off by the administrators as improper. This is most easily done by use of "Source" mode.SouthWriter 21:25, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

The format, in source, is

[double left brackets]Delete|"signature"|Reason for nomination[double right brackets]

The brackets are the "{" and the "}". Be careful not to hit the space bar after entering the template (it shows up in code). --SouthWriter 21:41, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Arstarpool, your information is correct. But in the past the ROC and PRC were in a war (also known as the Chinese Civil War). I wanted to make the story more dramatic, since this is an alternative wiki. Although you are right, PRC has been in good treaties with the ROC and the US in the present time. And for North Korea, it was its ally during the Korean War. NaruKeyblade 22:12, June 23, 2010 (UTC)NaruKeyblade

I know about the Chinese Civil War, but at the present moment the PRC is leaving the ROC alone, for fear that we will attack them. I am sorry for the delete thing, I will retract my statement on requesting it to be deleted. Just try to keep it plausible.

However, it is not an "alternative" wiki, it is an "alternate history". It must have a point of divergance, which means that it must stem off from normal history at One Point in history, which means that unless North Korea supporting The PRC was part of the changes, that must be retracted. Arstarpool 22:29, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

I think Naru meant "history," and does not quite understand the "point of divergence" requirement. However, based on the Wikipedia article on North Korea, China not only assisted in the fighting of the Korean war on the North's part, it continues today to be a huge trading partner with them. In fact, SOUTH Korea is a huge trading partner with North Korea! The fact that the two China's are still on edge (though at 'peace' right now) means that the US could still conceivably provoke China into a war by resuming friendly relations (or covertly aiding) Taiwan. If not, Naru could simply take a time during the 1990's as a point of divergence. His scenario would be largely the same as the 1983: Doomsday alternate history -- only worse in some ways since it would be a deliberate war. Instead of giving him a hard time, we ought to look for some event (or series of events) that might have flared up into a full-fledged war. SouthWriter 01:08, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

This may be interesting for you...

Did you know that WE would go to war with the PRC if they ever invaded the ROC? While we no longer diplomaticaly recognize them, in a way we protect them. That is what has kept the PRC from invading ROC for so long, if you didn't know.Arstarpool 01:21, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! Proving that in many ways China is NOT our "ally." They are, however our biggest trading partner and own a large portion of our debt! We don't want to get them mad either. They could ruin us just by calling in their bank notes. If they stopped trading with us, we'd have to sell to ourselves and start building some of our own appliances again! --- Gasp! --- But then, that trade would be sorely missed and reaallly mess up our economy as well. SouthWriter 01:56, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed only the unimportant parts of the world (Wyoming?) were the ones destroyed? Arstarpool 19:53, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

I think the creator of the time line meant for the maps to be the countries that emerged from the ashes. The lower 48 states of the US are split into three parts - with Texas being in the middle. Of course, with a timeline beginning in 2008, I doubt if hostilities would be over or any new nations could arise by now. SouthWriter 21:57, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Did you just imply. . .?

. . . That every nuclear weapon the world over was detonated during the engagement? If so you must deal with the ramifications of that. Ramifications such as nuclear winter, the vast amounts of radiation being spread around the world by the trade winds, the huge amount of particulate matter now floating in the atmosphere, thereby blocking some of the sun's rays, further increasing nuclear winter; the total collapse of every country, anywhere because of the choas that would ensue and the other details I just mentioned; the hundreds of millions that would die with no food being brought to them by plane/truck/train because of the collapsed countries, with the same being true for fresh water. Really, if you are not in a bunker specifically designed to support you and everyone in there for at least twenty years, you will die. Once that sinks in, you may want to change it from a total exchange to a limited exchange, or at least something less devastating.

Jazon Naparleon 16:33, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Lots of new stuff coming soon

I moved accounts, since I didn't like my original username. I will be changing much (probably the backstory; it's been edited by several users, and the map), so expect more updates. Sei-san 04:13, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can prove that you are Naru, you do not have permission to edit this, as it is their timeline. Refrain from doing so until such a time. Lordganon 08:34, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

A note

Okay, I had asked the creator about adopting this time-line, and I got no response from the creator in a week.
So, are there any objections to this?
If there is no objections in the next 3 days, then I shall adopt the time-line, if its okay. 9 もりや すわこ 16:03, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

As it's been over two weeks since you asked the editor, and they haven't done much to this timeline since March, i think it's safe to say the article is yours--Smoggy80 16:42, September 12, 2011 (UTC)