you stated this comprises of ILinois and Iowa and it runs across the missisipi this is inpossibe since the to states are in tne north and the rivers in the south--Owen1983 17:44, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Owen, what the hell are you talking about? The Mississippi River runs as far north as Minnesota and as far south as Louisiana. Meanwhile the Mississippi river makes up the eastern boundary of Iowa and the western boundary of Illinois. Go and look at a map if you don't believe me but this elementary American geography. Mitro 17:48, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
Owen: --BrianD 20:01, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

I never new that --Owen1983 16:06, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Who got rid of the map? I liked the map. --Yankovic270 23:43, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

What the Hell does it matter that you liked the map? If the author didn't, who are you to question his/her work? Stop letting your wants and patriotisms get in the way of this Alternate-History. Mr.Xeight 02:14, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Allright! Allright! If you are more interested in freaking out over a simple statement, then fine. Face it X. You are just as volatile as I am. Let me make this perfectly clear. It was an innocent observation. It was nothing to fly off the handle for. And you didn't answer my question. You just got all red-faced over nothing at all. Lord if this continues it pretty much be a user war between you and me. And I personally would rather bury the hatchet now than let it progess that far. --Yankovic270 02:27, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Really? Because you didn't see me type in all capitalized letters and a barrage of exclamation points when I found out the Patriarchal Residence, Parthenon, and White Tower were destroyed, did you? Nor do you see me give a damn if Mount Rushmore was destroyed. In-fact, I made it a point to not respond to anything of yours, until I saw this. I am NOT as unstable as you are. Mr.Xeight 02:31, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

I did in-fact answer your question. I said "the author", all it takes it clicking "history" at the top of the page. Mr.Xeight 02:32, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, everyone calm down. Mr. X, Yank has a point, it really was just an innocent observation. Mitro 02:43, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

I pulled back the map because I haven't decided which cities were nuked. --Jnjaycpa 02:53, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Mitro. At least there is someone that is on my side. And X? You may not explode at every little thing, but the fact that you reacted the way you did says that about something that souldn't have been a trigger means that even if you aren't as unstable as I am, you are a pretty close 2nd. And I am taking medication for my temper, and I might start meditating to to deal with it better. Lets look at the facts. I hadn't really had an outburst since the Mount Rushmore debacle, and I promptly (and calmly) explained why I freaked out. You on the other hand haven't said anything about the why. --Yankovic270 03:01, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

That was what this whole argument was about. The missing map. Thank you Jnjaycpa. --Yankovic270 03:06, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's because I don't want to get banned? I hardly think calling people unstable is controlling your anger, I see it more as self-denial and placing the blame on someone else, "scape-goating" you might say. The only reason the way I acted the way I did is because I wanted to get back at you for that outburst you left on talk page months ago, do you remember that? Mr.Xeight 03:07, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

OK thats enough. Both you need to end this argument now. Mitro 03:14, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

I got the information I wanted. And that was who removed the map and why. I am totally willing to bury the hatchet. I am sorry about the outburst on your talkpage Mr X. You seem to have a longer memory is such areas. But lets face it. Two wrongs don't make a right. I was wrong to freak out on you, but that does not magically make it OK when you do it to me. --Yankovic270 03:28, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Guys, why don't you take this to your own talk pages?--BrianD 03:38, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

This is really immature behaviour. Can you guys please stop arguing? and Yank: where i come from "bury the hachet" is kinda threatening. i know what you mean, but the english language can have different meanings for different people. --HAD 13:52, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you HAD this behavor is stupid and i dont give $2 who started is it realy worth getting upset about it no lets remember we are here to edit 1983DD and NOT to start fights on talk pages --Owen1983 16:20, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Let's take this up elsewhere, and allow jnjaycpa to develop his article.--BrianD 17:18, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Thats ok. As far as I am concerned this "fight" is over. I wish you good luck on the article Jnjaycpa. You can be garaunteed that when you are finished I will have no problem with it becoming canon. --Yankovic270 18:48, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry as well. Mr.Xeight 22:22, January 6, 2010 (UTC)


I’ve got a MAJOR problem with my Quad Cities scenario. I found out on Wikipedia that in the area is the Rock Island Arsenal, a huge weapons manufacturing plant. This means there would be a Soviet ICBM with its name on it. I’m reluctant to use the standard DEM about a malfunctioning ICBM. Could anybody help me sort out this problem? Thanks. --Jnjaycpa 18:31, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

I think it may be possible that there could have been a malfunction in the targeting system of the ICBM silo. The launches could have been sucessful, but end up in the ocean. I don't think a system as complicated as the system launching and guiding the ICBMs would run without a hitch. It should be Murphy's Law in action. As far as I can tell there are many things that can go wrong in the launching of a missile. This whole timeline is based around a glitch in the Soviet's missile radar causing Doomsday. The Soviets and Americans had massive stockpiles of nuclear arms. Even a small percentage of these malfunctioning would mean many cities or military bases getting a reprieve from the nuclear executioner. --Yankovic270 02:04, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

While it is logical to assume that a percentage of ICBMs would miss their targets, I feel we are not in a position to start guessing which ones would. At worst it could be abused with people creating their "most favored nation" even if it is in an area of a strike, by saying the missile malfunctioned. As the Editorial Guidelines state: if in doubt, it was nuked. However not all hope is lost. Lahbas pointed out a while back that there is less radiation from a airburst than a surface detonation. So the question is, what would the Soviets use? Mitro 15:59, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

according to my book on ICBMs and such-like, probably something like a 100kt device at airbust.--HAD 18:39, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

I believe a reasonable argument might be made that Rock Island Arsenal was not targeted on Doomsday. Given the general discussions that have been taking place as to what targets would have been hit given the overall nature of the attack, it has been my understanding nearly all primary targets and many secondary targets, including most major cities, would likely have been destroyed. Having checked the status of the arsenal, it is my impression it was either a secondary or tertiary target and as such might have escaped, sparing the area. However, if the area was struck, given it is located in the central US, I think it would have come from a warhead discharged from an ICBM. I read up on the types of ICBMs which the Soviets used at the time and the size of warheads which were attached, and it seems reasonable a 550 kiloton warhead might have been utilized given the nature of the facility. Larger warheads, such as 1+ megaton would have been reserved for large urban areas and hardened underground command and control facilities and missile silos. If it was targeted by a submarine fired ICBM then it might be in the 100+ kiloton range. None the less, I think it is possible it could have escaped being hit. --Fxgentleman 01:58, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

I would say its not reasonable but plausable --Owen1983 15:43, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

Iowa City and the size of the QCA

How large is the QCA actually? I always judged the size of the state by the map, but there are references to the QCA controlling Iowa City, which is somewhat west of the OTL Quad Cities. Mitro 21:11, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that doesn't make sense at all using the map you give us. ProfessorMcG 01:01, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

I've worked up a map showing the expansions given. Karl-591 06:51, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Quad Cities 2

QCA Expansions

Quad Cities Alliance Economy

The Quad cities alliance page says their economy is booming. But it doesn’t mention any of the corporations in the Quad City area. After reading the Wikipedia pages for the towns that make up the Quad Cities Alliance, I have compiled a list of companies in the region. The firms in the area include John Deer, Lee Enterprises, American Aluminum Corporation and Group O, just to name a few.

Goldwind1 (talk) 23:53, December 24, 2012 (UTC)

You know that there's no need at all to list them, right?

Anyhoo, two of those are more or less done. Their business would be toast. John Deere is likely where the armored cars - and likely still tractors, of course - are made, and the other would still be in control of the papers.

Lordganon 08:40, October 15, 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you meant Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) with facilities in the area. Another problem with such facilities is getting aluminum from the refineries. Once they have manufactured the product or sold the product on hand at Doomsday (manufacturing takes a lot of electricity!) they would either go out of business or convert the plant to produce simpler goods. The market they probably would have sold most of their product to John Deere anyway.
Lee Enterprizes would see its publishing empire would broken up, leaving it with a market only in the Quad Cities area. However, many of its papers were acquired after 1983, it having acquired whole publishing companies and their papers with them in 2002 and 2005 in OTL.
The nature of Group O's business would be severely damaged by a loss of communication with the outside world. It's large work force would be forced into a different sort of 'service industry' requiring skill sets not held by many of the 'desk jobs' of a management and marketing company. They are listed as a packaging company as well, so maybe they would have some jobs available on the lower end, though it is not likely since most goods and services would be traded locally and not need 'fancy packaging.'
Even John Deere would need support from their market in Superior, Kentucky and Virginia. Steel and other raw materials would be imported, and they would require reliable rail service north and east for most of the transport to and from the factories. SouthWriter 20:20, October 15, 2011 (UTC)

Cool! :) I'm from Davenport! ima firin ma lazar!!!!! o(@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 20:17, December 24, 2012 (UTC)


Is anyone still working on this page? If not, I'd like to adopt it. 

GryffindorKrypton (talk) 01:21, March 29, 2020 (UTC)GryffindorKrypton

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.