All we see of Nebraska in the article is that it is a founding state and that its capital is Scotts Bluff. Then we find out that there is a provisional government on the far side of the state that has rebuilt the more populated eastern part of the state (claiming the whole state as its own). If the Provisional United States is basically in agreement with the CRUSA, then I see a problem here.
Why did the developing PUS ever accept the word of the Scotts Bluff government? Was it because it was close by and convenient to the expanding borders of the presumpious government of this late developing "country"? The more I have studied this "Provisional United States of America" the more that I can see that it is not exactly what the CRUSA has in mind. I can see why some of the CRUSA faiithful are weary of this group.SouthWriter 21:44, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
I think that the Provisional USA (and the NAU) are driven very strongly by pragmatism and local needs rather than idealism. (That feels very western, to me.) The CRUSA, in my mind, will never really like the PUSA because PUSA's purpose is to provide for the security (and civic and material) needs of western Americans, rather than revive the Glory Days. Scotts Bluff and Lincoln were mostly unaware of each other for years, as I understand it, and once they found one another neither was willing to simply merge with the other. And the former helped found the PUSA - so it's certainly wrong to say they were taken over because they were "convenient" - the whole thing was partly their idea! They wanted to form this new federation, and Lincoln did not; I think it's as simple as that. Benkarnell 22:05, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
I think that you are wrong. The PUSA AND NAU were problably formed to preserve the pre-Doomsday lifestyle. A combination of needs and nationalism.Arstarpool 00:24, March 7, 2010 (UTC)
Population
How large would the population of the PUSA be? PGC has a population of approximatly 1.3 million people and the NAU holds 3 million people altogether. would 200,000 in Lakota and 1.5 million in the PUSA be acceptable?Ramdominsanity 20:44, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
I think that an ideal population could be around 2.5 million of the NAU, maybe 2.2 million in all of the PUSA. Arstarpool 00:24, March 7, 2010 (UTC)
Its already been established that the population of the PGC is 1.3 and the NAU is 3 million. So a division of 1.5 million for PUSA and 200,000 in Lakota sounds good to me.Oerwinde 00:37, March 7, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the Backup, Oer.Ramdominsanity 10:58, March 7, 2010 (UTC)
When adding the population of all the states, I get 2,315,000. Either the state's population has been too generous or someone excluded certain states when counting the population. Arstarpool 03:03, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
Isolated Territories
Do you think it would be possible for the PUSA to have territories that are not connected? I think maybe the Keys off the coast of Florida or maybe some parts of Maryland, where there would presumably be large amounts of Patriots. I also think that it may be possible for Virginia, or at least certain parts of it to integrate. Also, why couldn't there be a North American Neutral Gathering (NANG) in which all of the known nations, warring or allies, could gather and discuss the future of the continent. I also think its time we discover some more countries or communities along the Californian coast.Arstarpool 00:26, March 7, 2010 (UTC)
Arstarpool, jump on in. You're welcome to suggest ideas for newly discovered nations in California, and you're more than welcome to raise issues, and suggested changes on the main 1983: Doomsday talk page. Regarding the PUSA, Mitro (the creator) can clarify if this PUSA is supposed to be a western-based nation or a continuation of the USA.BrianD 07:19, March 7, 2010 (UTC)
I have personally always thought the PUSA to be a contituation of the USA, with the same constituion, laws, etc. Also, according to the WCRB report on the South, several microstates consider themselves Americans. Ramdominsanity 11:09, March 7, 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that the PUSA would have such isolated teritories. The PUSA is not the CRUSA. They were motivated by the practical needs of its citizens, rather than blind and borderline idiotic patriotism (it crossed the border) in a nation that hasn't existed for over a quarter of a century. They use the name and ideals United States as a unifying code to keep the stability of their lands in check. But the CRUSA's disturbingly fanatical worship of the dead nation is insane and tremendously disrespectful to the great land. To put it mildly: The generation that had such patriotism to the United States is being phased out of societies all across America. Over the years more of them would die or retire, and their children (who would grow up as Virginians, Kentuckians, etc instead of Americans) would replace them, diluting memories of the United States. even if the PUSA had interest in the territory outside their current borders, by the time they reach them no one would be interested in joining such a union. I'd like to say I don't like crushing your little fantasy, but that would be a bald-faced lie. It is about time that the naive users of 1983: Doomsday get it through their heads: America is gone, and its never coming back. Stop deluding yourselves and get back to editing 1983: Doomsday without needless patriotism fogging your mind. I apologize to any who are offended, but I have had enough.
Yank, I think you're overestimating the nationalism of nations that have existed for less than 30 years. The USA isn't some ancient long dead empire with no hope of resurrection. While many will grow up extremely loyal to the nation they belong to, there will be a huge number raised with their parents and grandparents tales of the "greatest nation in the world" and will seek to restore it. While there are many areas that would flat out not join a new United States such as Virginia, others including many of the smaller city states across the former US would likely join. While I don't think the PUSA would have any unconnected territories at this time, if at some point it gets a coastal port, I could see it happening then.Oerwinde 00:39, March 8, 2010 (UTC)
Yank, I am afraid you have taken your "fantasy" and built a future with Charleston West, Virginia, as the capital of a blantantly sucessionist state. You have taken on the personality of a general that somehow has a loyal troop of "followers" that take possession of federal property with no authority to do so, and then precede to take over land that over which they had no legitament authority. Somehow the governor of the state at Doomsday (Jay Rockefeller) had been preserved for over 20 years to be resurrected as the "first democratically elected president-general" of the nation. And this was only because the "much loved" Thompson - who was NOT a general, and not in Kentucky in 1983. Your fantasy is based on artificial situations that did not exist in OTL while most of us are taking great pains -- with a lot of research. Now the Virginian Republic is infecting the Commonwealth of Kentucky (by its very name meant to be part of a confederate system) with its philosophy of "nation building."
Your tirade above could very well reduce your "influence" in the Southeast of TTL. It may be US who have "had enough" and wish to veto your contributions. A new POD might have to be created to save your concept -- something like "1983: Virginia Survives" -- in which the survivalist state nestled in the Appalachians rises to reclaim the whole east coast, or the whole southeast, or whatever. You have done a lot of work in building your "fantasy," and it would be a shame for it to be tossed aside, but perhaps we have "had enough" of your vision.SouthWriter 04:56, March 8, 2010 (UTC)
South, there was a James E. Thompson who commanded the 101st Airbone at the time of Doomsday. Whether he is the same person covered by the Wikipedia article you wrote remains to be seen. "James Thompson" sounds like a common name, its possible that the commander of the 101 and the man you list are two different people. Mitro 18:39, March 8, 2010 (UTC)
I was curious, so I first looked up James Thompson on wikipedia and got a page listing 26 men, none of which was a general. And so, I searched wikipedia for James E. Thompson, and got only one hit. The picture on that page was that which Yank used. I didn't go any further. After a personal note from Yank, I checked further, finding the link that you list above. That list links to the wikipedia article and the picture that Yank uses as a picture of General Thompson.
No one has addressed what happened to Jay Rockefeller for over twenty years while Thompson ruled the new republic. The man was the governor in a state capital that was not destroyed. But when Thompson and his roving band of nation builders arrive, the state government had fallen. Apparently the WV government had followed the example of that of the US and had abandoned the cause (that is, left town to regroup). Are we to expect that a nation ruled by the military would accept vote such a man in as its first elected leader? --SouthWriter 02:33, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
WP says that Thompson has lived in Hong Kong since 1978. What gives? Benkarnell 03:44, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
I think thats a different Thompson. GOPZACK 03:47, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
Yes I think this is one of those cases where two people have the same name but the Wikipedia editors haven't recognized it. I think South makes a good point about Rockefeller though. It seems odd that a culture as militaristic as Virginia would elect Jay Rockefeller in their first free election. Mitro 13:55, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
Let's not rule Jay Rockefeller out altogether, though. He may have been working behind the scenes to bring back democracy - even if he, for some reason, had not been able to save Charleston from the warlords. In OTL he has been very active in West Virginia politics -- on a national level since 1984. I think maybe he would have been a thorn in Thompson's side! But the politics of post DD West Virginia would make the "political bedfellows" work together in the end to assure Virginian unity. --SouthWriter 15:43, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
I deeply apologize for my conduct. I shouldn't have said what I said. I just think that a mass restoration of the United States is unfeasible at least at this point. I am just sick of hearing these seemingly naive ideas of the US coming back. Am I the only one who knows that this timeline is a distopia? As much as I would like to see the US back in action, I don't see see how that can happen. But that gives me no right to try and suppress any idea I don't like. Freedom of Speech is a value I treasure very much. So please accept my humble apologies, and I sincerely hope that we can get past this unfortunate dissagreement and work together better. So I ask you this : Are you willing to bury the hatchet?
Yankovic270 17:52, March 8, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Yank. Apology accepted. We figured out that you "kidnapped" the wrong James E. Thompson. I'm sure dear old Gen. Jim Thompson would make a fine dictator. But not the Hong Kong businessman whose picture adorns your article (in a rare instance in which he is in "civilian" digs). We don't want any "utopia," and we are sure that things would not work out in some areas after a disaster such as an all-out nuclear attack. But a fully disoptic world saved by dictators is not what we are looking for in this co-operative work. The survivor communities are towns that, for the most part, did not require federal troops to maintain order even in times of disaster. I don't have a lot of faith in human nature, but in communities that don't put their faith in mankind's wonders, such as the Mennonite communities, such disasters seem to be dealt with a whole lot better.--SouthWriter 15:43, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
I guess I just don't understand your outburst Yank. You seem to be emotionally attached to your position but I fail to see the logic behind it. I don't believe anyone is suggesting that every single American survival state is going to immediately surrender their independence and join the PUSA, but if an American survivor state (which PUSA is) were to declare itself the true successor to the US, why would that be illogical? Canada has done the same thing and it has been a part of canon since the beginning. In fact its very likely that there are several states like PUSA in post-Doomsday America, they just have not been written about yet.
I don't believe this is about patriotism, its about realism. As I have argued with Fero, the American people did not disappear in 1983 or 1995. Even the survivors on the continent are haunted by its former glory. I find it very probable for a state declaring itself to be the successor of the USA. That does not make it any less a dystopia, just as having a rump Soviet Union still existing does not make this TL less of a dystopia. No offense but when you once suggested that Virginia, a survivor state that has only recently gotten its affairs in order, was actually 5 times larger then what was originally graduated into canon, that made this TL less like a dystopia.
Now lets get back on topic since it was Arstarpool comments that started this discussion in the first place. Arstarpool, PUSA is a collection of survivor communities/states on the Great Plains. They have been isolated from most of the outside world since 2009. I don't think it would be likely that isolated communities in Florida and Maryland would join them. For one thing the distances involved would make any type of government impractical. Potential survivor states in the places you suggest might be likely (see Delmarva), but they are more likely to be independent or provisional republics like Aroostook. However your idea about a meeting between the various survivor states might be an option in the future, though negotiations about where it would be held might postpone the eventual start date of the conference. Mitro 18:33, March 8, 2010 (UTC)
i would have to agree with Mitro on this. But what i find quite funny in a perculiar fashion is that if we count the PUSA as a continuation and not a sucessor, the old USA never truly disappeared. it just came back slighlty different. Ramdominsanity 19:21, March 8, 2010 (UTC)
Wow, good discussion. I think what hasn't come out is that this is not just about what most people want or feel. I am certain that most people in most communities all across the US still consider themselves American by nationality. But there is often a great gulf between what people say they want in the long term and what they are willing to do in the short term. (Case in point: most Americans say they want the US government to balance its budget.) Saying you believe in reviving the USA is one thing: actually seeing eye to eye with your neighbors about what that means is quite another. The PUSA falls somewhere between Yankovic's assumptions (it's a strictly local thing wthat happens to use the symols of the USA) and SouthWriter's (it's a genuine attempt at re-establishing the "real" USA). On the one hand, the founders of the PUSA probably recognized their new federation as a great "next step" and the start of a healing process for the US. On the other hand, they must have recognized that the specific system they were creating probably could not expand to encompass the entire old country.
The process of bringing back America (and Americanism) is going to be messy and tentative, long and slow. I tried to reflect this in my description of West Panama, which is in a similar situation. Nearly everyone there still thinks of themselves as Panamanian, and they look to the day when Panama can be restored. But in the meantime, one community (Azuero) has generally taken an attitude like Virginia, that while they are Panamanian on some level they'd rather go it alone. Another (San Jose de David) has gotten used to the idea that if Panama is going to be restored, it will be on its own terms, and its citizens are reluctant to change that mindset. A third (Guaymia) believes in a united Panama but is caught up in too many local disagreements to consider joining the current attempt at a federation. This situation is, I think, a fairly accurate microcosm for the USA and Canada. Benkarnell 22:19, March 8, 2010 (UTC)
I think, that automatically, you all have thought with the "possible future utopia" outlook or a "total permanent dystopia" outlook. I disagree with both, and while I agree with some of you that the old United States Of America, with the 50 states and the same old borders is just a dream, I think that partial re-annexation would be possible.
In a post-apocalyptic book I once read titled "World War Z", a zombie virus kills off about about 2/3 of the world within the course of a year, and the remaining populations are housed either in the main safe-zones or alone or in small communities. After nearly a decade, the United States government, which is now based behind the Rockies, In Hawaii, starts an offensive to reclaim thier lost territory.
Maybe a similar event may happen in the Doomsday:1983 Timeline, where the PUSA starts to reclaim territorys of the old USA, and acknowledging the new countries. So rather than this horrid time be the "Fall of America" or "The Reparation of America", it may be a middle path. I don't know, maybe it would be a Union of 30 or so states, maybe it will stay the same, or maybe it will be a carbon copy of the old Union, with every single county as it was before. But before you maybe childish postulations, remember to use our collective consiousness and combine all of our ideas to create a reasonable scenario rather than stick to the polar opposites. Arstarpool 00:18, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
I read World War Z and while it was a good book, I'm not sure if the lesson would translate that well into 1983: Doomsday. For example, there were some communities in the US of WWZ that did secede and had to be brought back in using force. I don't think you are going to see that here with the PUSA. For one thing I doubt the North American Union, for which they are a member, would support such actions. Another reason is that PUSA I don't think is strong enough to forcefully take over places like Utah or Superior. The NAU has a better chance of expanding across the old borders than (P)USA does.
Also lets not forget that in WWZ the USA didn't end, here it did.
I seriously doubt that when PUSA drops the P they will become a carbon copy of the old Union. Almost 30 years post-Doomsday history will prevent that. Furthermore PUSA's new constitution (whenever they finish writing it) will no doubt be affected by western politics. Mitro 04:46, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
I've been pondering this for sometime, I believe that one day a "new" United States will form somewhere most likely originating from the PUSA. Some nations will join others like Virginia will be hell bent on staying out. Any reformation of the USA is years off however. South I also want to assure you that Kentucky will not be "infected" by Virginia or by anyone. Kentucky is a more moderate nation then their friends to the east in the sense they will not rule out joining a new America but at the same time see the value of strengthening relations with their regional partners. Friends America is not forgotten and is hardly an afterthought for those in the former United States. Yank's contributions should not be vetoed from this timeline as they are logical well though out, creative and compelling scenarios. It appears that most of South's grievances have been cleared up as mere misunderstandings.
I know Arstarpool's suggestions deal with a zombie invasion but in a way it's the same thing, scores of people killed in senseless violence and a provisional United States in the plains instead of Hawaii seeking to reclaim territory but instead of marching in all guns a blazing they use diplomacy to entice small city states to join their fold. I think it's a route defiantly worth considering. GOPZACK 04:31, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
On the issue of if the US will ever return I think it’s possible, if not likely for it to eventually come back. There are several nations OTL that have disappeared for century’s only to come back again in the modern era. I am sure that to someone living in 1860, the thought of an independent Poland would seem like an ultra nationalist polish fantasy. But today we have a Poland that has existed for almost 100 years.
However it’s important to not that the modern day Republic of Poland bears little resemblance to the original Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, both in terms of territory, politics, and culture. I would assume if America was to ever rise from the ashes, it would bear as little resemblance to OTL USA as Poland dose to the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. It would have much different political systems, territory, demographics, and even culture. And remember this will be a slow process that will take decades, or perhaps even centuries for it to happen.--ShutUpNavi 15:51, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... you make a good point, Navi. Im my opinion, what North America resembles more then anything right now in tems of geopolitics is either the Holy Roman Empire or the German Confederation. Its probably gonna take a Bismark type figure to bring all the components togehter. If any of you know of a person with these abilites and who probably survived Doomsday (that means no Barrack Obama! or John McCain, for that matter!) please mention them on the Talk Page. Also, when the Constitutional Convention gets under way, i think we should do it like this: each state in the PUSA gets one (or two) delegates and then we proceed to hammer out an agreement. If i may, i would put myself in Sarah Heaths shoes and support the concept of declaring the PUSA the USAs sucessor state.Ramdominsanity 18:51, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
Let me point out that Thompson may have decided that his sucessor might need to know how to think like a politician, and not a military man. This may be why he chooses Rockefeller. Do you have any candidates for President-General? Any figures that were in the military or could have been in the military ATL?Yankovic270 16:21, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure how you can drum up a military man who would end up in West Virginia after 25 years. Perhaps someone who had been stationed at Fort Campbell in the 101st under Thompson in 1983. However, remember, the Republic had been under military rule for a quarter century and wants to impress the world community by a return to democracy. Perhaps Jay Rockefeller has been active in politics all along (or at least having resurfaced after order was restored). It would have been a bit awkward, for sure, but it would work. He might have even fled to one of the surrounding states and served as governor while Thompson was President-general. If the head of state remains a military position ("President-general"), then Rockefeller would likely agree to a commission into the armed forces after election. SouthWriter 03:17, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
I have two ideas for a military officer President-General.
J. A. Guest (Commander of the 5th Special Group)- Was at Fort Campbell. Would have moved to West Viginia when Thompson and the 101st did.
J. H. Binford Peay III (CO of the 101st Airborne after Thompson)- Could have boarded a ship to Delmarva as soon as he got news of Virginia.
Present Situation
As discussions fly all over the place concerning the fate of the union or co-operation between states in the former United States, the article that should be the center of things remains a stub. In fact, it is an afterthought to the trilateral agreement with the "provisional" government of the two minor Canadian provinces and some native American tribes.
I have looked over the history of the site, and see that Mitro finally took it over in April 2009 after about two months of Emanresu11's work of independently putting together a theoretical western alliance that did not work well with the althistory that had been building for a year. Loughery valiantly tried to expand the original idea, and finally, after Owen stepped in to attempt a fix, Mitro took the reigns and steered the "good ship NAU" to its current course. Finally, on November 21, Mitro introduced the history of the PUSA. It was soon after that that I joined discussions on other pages, never getting to this article until now. Basically, the introduction of the re-establishing of a Provisional United States came and was established with very little discussion. My "perfectionism" has finally gotten the best of me!
Some questions arise. For starters, why would Ray Hunkins be in any place to actually become the "George Washington" of the PUSA? Even in 2002, at the age of 63, he was an unsucessful candidate for governor of Wyoming. His attempt in 2006 was unsuccessful as well. In 1983 he would have only been 44, very young for a candidate for governor or president and with no political experience. By 1992, Hunkins would have to have returned to the Marines from his law practice, gained rank in the war against the Lakota, and then been the odds on favorite at the convention -- the only candidate, in fact, to be presented to the voters at the first national election. Quite a bit to assume for a conservative lawyer from Wheatland, WY.
Second, how did the CAPITAL of the PCUSA end up in tiny Torrington? Granted, the town is perhaps the location that would have recieved the survivors and refugees from Cheyene, and it would have been far enough removed from the Lakota to survive the ravages of the war, but some story line might be good to build up the future capital of the whole USA!
And then, the whole history of the tweny-first century -- with some idea of leadership in the past decade as the continent recovers from the early trials -- would help as we consider the fate of an eventual confederation of the scattered nations that once made up the USA.SouthWriter 02:03, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
I chose Ray Hunkins because I was looking for a politico with some military experience. Since a theme of the TL has always been to bring the little known to the forefront, he seemed like a good choice. If you have another suggestion I'd be glad to hear it.
As for Torrington...well I honestly don't know why I picked it. Maybe someone else did it for me. Do you feel another town would be a better pick?
I realize that the history of the PUSA is pretty slim, but there is still a good summary on the NAU page. I always figured one of these days I would return and beef up the article, but school, studying for the IL bar, work, looking for a career and planning a wedding are getting the best of me. Mitro 02:14, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I spent half the day researching the history before submitting this note. And then I happen to catch you in the spare moments you have set aside to give to this project. I hope that things are going well with you. Being a guy who made it through graduate school only to not find a place in my chosen field (the gospel ministry), I can sympathise with you facing the bar and all. With me, planning a wedding was not part of my history. My own was done totally by my wife's side of the family. Our son's was, for the most part, the bride's project. It was paid for mostly by her family, while my family provided the venue (our church's chapel and 'fellowship hall' directly below the chapel. I wish you the best in these real life ventures.
Meanwhile, I am closing in on a year in "early retirement" (unemployed at age 57). My wife makes good money, but I hope to have something to replace the unemployment checks when they run out. :-( SouthWriter 02:39, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and about Hunkins and Torrington, I'll get to work on those. Probably sometinse tomorrow (EDT - Tuesday, Apr 6). I'll work from !980's governors of Wyoming and whatever I can find of military backgrounds for other politicians of the area. Hunkins was a Marine, and proud of it, but by 1983 he had long since retired and was working as a lawyer and part-time rancher. As I said above, there is some rationale for building up Torrington as the capital (since Cheyenne was so close and it would be a recieving area for any surviving government officials anyway). I'll run some figures and see how feasable it would be to rebuild there for a national government, but I think that a better idea would to build the state capital there and move the national capital, when it is needed, to Casper (where the present NAU article has the stae capital. As a much larger town, this would be more suitable for the center of a nation.
On the other hand, since the Lakota war began due to the threat of a growing presense of Wyoming, perhaps a national capital "built from scatch" would work better. Though about twice as far away, Casper would still be fairly accessable as a recieving community. It is right up Interstate 25 (US 87) and has the "advantage" of being on the other side of a ridge of mountains. I'd say that when the time came for a national government, Torrington could be converted into a federal district fairly easily. It is near the state line and the conjuction of three counties. In fact, looking at the map, a little village named Henry, Nebraska, (No kidding, my namesake!) sits near the middle of a Federal City, District of America (DA).that could be built just souteeast of Torrington (which now houses the present [2010] government).
And so, that's "settled" (yeah, like who made me king?) -- Torrington remains the national capital. But Hunkins will have to wait a bit. I need to find a "war hero" that can win against the Lakota but not enrage them so much that they would not want to join in the NAU. SouthWriter 03:30, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
I see not much discussion has moved on this apparently pivotal American nation. I see Hunkins was explained, and I'm good with that. As far as
Proposed boundaries for new capitol city
Torrington is concerned, I did a google earth approximation of the capital district adjacent to Torrington, though. It is just a screenshot of the area with a circle to show.the proposed boundaries. We could write in progress report concernig the construction of Federal City if we decide to go this route. SouthWriter 15:19, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
absaroka
It's really split in two around wyoming? Louisiannan 21:32, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
/* 1991 Constitutional Convention */
These changes were made by SouthWriter (I got kicked off and didn't realize it! [SouthWriter] 98.71.133.51 21:40, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
Hmm...I am wondering whether we should just make that section a seperate article. Mitro 22:24, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing as I saved the page this afternoon. I didn't realise consolidating some of the sections would take up so much space. Do you think I should paste in the full text when I put it in its new home? SouthWriter 01:53, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
Revised map
new borders
I've revised the map to include the acquision of "Spokane" by Lincoln, and the expansion of Idaho west into Idaho county (formerly of Lincoln - it just seemed right) and south to the Snake River. SouthWriter 18:22, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
If you would actually bother to look at a map of the world, or even North America, and read a bit around countries near the new USA, you'd find that your map is not possible, in the least, and makes no sense at all.
While I applaud your enthusiasm, you really need to get a feel for the timeline and the established maps and histories before you go off randomly editing like this.
If you think that that is anywhere close to a decent "suggestion" or "proposal" you are sadly mistaken. The same goes for you actually reading the timeline. You have taken nothing into account in making your "proposal" and are simply making a map for the sake of empowering the new USA, no matter how illogical it is, because you are blinded by your nationalism. Lordganon 23:56, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
And I am dang proud to be! God Bless America! I was only making a possible suggestion for the future,being a normal wiki contributer! And this map is possible, because something many people overlook is American Pride and spirt,even the most deveoted communists during the Cold War said that they could nuke us back to Caves,but they could never destroy our spirt! But besides that,it is entirely possible for this to happen,maybe in the future,but who knows with you downing ever suggestion! I was trying to help,but never mind!
You completely missed the point. Though in doing so you definitely proved the point I was making. Funny, that.
Your map is simply lines randomly drawn on a map. It does not follow any atl political boundaries, nor does it take into account states refusing to deal with the new USA at all in any fashion, or that Non-American survivor states control significant areas over those "borders".
OK GB, considering this a warning. Insulting someone's nation just because they disagreed with your argument is going to far. Do anything like this again and I will block you. Mitro 21:11, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
I removed my comment,and I apologize.However,I dont think LG should be allowed to insult my nation,and suggestions.God Bless the United States of America 21:44, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
I read LG's statements and he did not insult your nation. He was critical of your proposal, and maybe his language was a little harsh, but you overreacted. Stop acting like the victim. This a community project and if you want to be a contributing member you are going to need to learn to tone down the rhetoric. Mitro 22:54, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
Invitations to join?
I noticed that Mitro has added language that would probably restrict the USA from expanding to include other states that are now "nations." Is this going to preclude invitations to nation-states to join the union anyway? I know that "Lincoln" and the states of the "Dixie Alliance" (well, at least the VR) are absolutely opposed to such a union. Others, like the former CSA and some of the other southern "nations" might be interested though.
To just "take" the name of the USA, without any organic link to the continuing nation, is just as wrong as the new, not yet canonized, nation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania usurping the accepted "claim" of the provisional government at State College by doing much the same thing. I suggest that there be an official communique, perhaps from the emergency government that had perhaps formed at the bunker deep beneath Cheyene Mountain, that establishes this link. Otherwise, the "new" United States will be the laughing stock of the world.
This does not mean the nation will "demand" anything of the other nation-states, but there should at least be an attempt to establish a legitmacy of the new government as the "successor" of the old.SouthWriter 20:15, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
Hey South, I wrote that paragraph due to the fact that I was unable to write anything during my absence. You make a good point and I will try to rewrite it to reflect some of your ideas. Since it is written that there was some minimum contact with Reagan shortly after Doomsday, maybe they can base their claim on some of the communications with him. Is there anything else you think I should revise about the announcement? Mitro 20:30, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
Well, we may need to go back and gently edit a few places about the beginning notions that such a coalition would be called the USA in the first place. No other nation on the continent presumed to call itself the USA, though many remained "independent" states with the hopes of re-establishing relations some day. There is probably some sort of "shadow" government in place, connected in some way with NORAD, that would have gone into effect. Since the missiles were mostly located in what is the PUSA, we could assume that the governments of those states would have some knowledge of this to take on the role as the successor government.
Some sort of announcement of planned communications with former state governments is ongoing would probably be in order. Other than these two things, I suppose we're good to go. I'll try to get back to the work I was doing on the USA and its member states. It is the most promising of the "minor" nations of the northern hemisphere. --SouthWriter 20:42, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
South I'm glad you brought up the "shadow government" thing. A lot of Alternative History related around nuclear war has always mentioned the remnants of the US government or the "shadow government" somewhere in the the Western United States. Also the state governments having plans in place strengthens the theory that some governors may have had plans to escape the capitals of their respective states and escape to some rendezvous point. GOPZACK 02:10, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
It only makes sense, for the command to fire the missiles had to come from the president and one other confirmed signatory. Those in the bunkers, and especially those in the deepest control centers (shielded from both incoming attack and communication breakdown), would be privy to the command structure already in place. The silos in Montana and the tri-state area near Cheyenne, as well as those in North Dakota and Missouri, would have been staffed with high ranking military who could act on the behalf of the president in the case of the collapse of the government. Likewise, there are government agencies that are practically autonomous and ubiguitous, working on contingency plans and protocol. Like it or not, the bureucracy IS the government OF and BY the people working by rules set down with the approval of Congress. "What do we do now?" is not a phrase that would be heard in the network of the "shadow government."
All that being said, in this scenario, with the Bush government fleeing and choosing only to communicate with the military and intact governments of the pacific, the rise of alternate governments in states, counties, and even cities in the US would be expected. Only the strongest of the bureaucracies could hope to maintain an organic continuation of the absent government. This is both QSS and QAA. But, the case of the pUSA needs to be different. The article is one of the oldest in the wiki, originally being only "American" states and much larger. It evolved into the North American Union, with the pUSA being a major nation in that union. And then, it was practically "dropped" as the other independent nation-states began to pop up all over North America. This should be a major article at least as large as the emerging "superpower" of Siberia. SouthWriter 13:27, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
My intention when creating the PUSA nation was just to create a survivor state on the plains. I named it PUSA because I couldn't think of anything else and I thought it was likely that there would be at least one American survivor state to call itself the United States. I always figured it would assume the role later on, like it is doing now, but I never meant it to make it the Siberia of North America. Even if there are intact military bunkers and agencies with sufficient staff, even I doubt they can take one of the least populated areas of the US and turn it into a superpower. I guess a big question is how sure are we that those alleged generals who manned the silos are still alive? Mitro 14:31, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
Well, I said an "emerging" superpower. The NAU, with its combined nations, only has a population of the smallest South American country - Paraguay - but of that 6,555,000 (2010 est.) the USA has the second largest population - about 2,315,000 vs. Utah/Deseret which has the largest population of any former US state or territory (app. 2,500,000). The presence of the nations of Hawaii and Alaska, much smaller in population, as nations holding their own in the League of Nations, should leave an opening to this new nation as well. When I meant that this was to be "as large as" Siberia, I was not referring to population, or military strength, but influence.
And so, the "least populated area of the former USA," by virtue of its collective states, is the second most populated survivor nation. And that placement is only based on approximate figures. Even now, for example, the census being taken in TTL might show a change in status. The land area, plus the alliance in the NAU, makes the USA a legitimate power. The key, of course, is revealing the legitimate claim they have as a successor state. The generals in the silos were only servants of the US government, the power would devolve to the bureaucracy even presuming that some of the personnel escaped destruction. From the story so far, we can assume that the governor of Wyoming was in on the structure of the emergency government. As he moved together with other surviving members of state and federal agencies over the course of eight years, the pUSA came into being. Now, after establishing the NAU, the USA is in position to actually "cause things to happen."
It should be interesting. --SouthWriter 19:58, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
Quick question: who wants the honour of posting the fact that the USA is back on the WCRB page/main page and also altering all relevent datat to show the USA is no longer Provisional? (My own skills are far too limited.)HAD 22:05, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
Well, a simple "find/replace" function would work if the article is about the present (such as the article about the US of this timeline), and all others, if linked, can be redirected by a simple "redirect" command and moving the article with its new name. SouthWriter 00:38, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
What are your (plural) plans regarding the other established nation states in the former U.S. and the soon-to-be-formerly-Provisional-United States? BrianD 22:41, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
I for one, am almost totally committed to the US (I adopted Madagascar, which is apparently stuck in its mirky politics and doesn't effect much of African affairs in ANY time line), so I plan on developing the old ones and introducing a nation state that I have mentioned, tentatively called Neonotia (New South) in SW Georgia and SE Alabama. Also, I have introduced the coming demise of the city-state of Toccoa, CSA, hopefully with the help of the VR (without joining the DA, by the way). I still have to work up something with Anderson, Florence, and Georgetown (all SC city-states), while updating the Piedmont article. I have a stake in Lincoln, USA, (along with the other states, but not so much), and the present president of Aroostook (Samantha Smith).
Meanswhile, I am shepherding Arastar in the development of his addition to the politics of Pennsylvania (trying to steer him away from "claiming" the state as a seccessor state) and the California article he introduced up beside the developing article of the Sierra Nevada Union. Then there is the Christian Republic of Olstead (low maintenance). I have probably left something out. Support for the USA and the NAU are the biggest priority right now. SouthWriter 00:38, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
New government?
Mention is made in the most recent change that a new government will be chosen in November. Why? The nation has been under the United States Constitution since its founding, having elected a president and other government officials "on schedule" in 1992. November is just another national election and need not be anything but another "midterm" election, electing representatives and 6 of 18 senators. In addition, they will be voting on changing the name of the republic by removing the "Provisional" prefix. And one other thing, they will be voting on the flag. Since there is no article in the constitution concerning a flag, I will change the text to read that the vote will be on the ones we "voted" on. Of course, our winner will be their winner.
I will not remove this note, but I strongly recommend it be altered to show a continuation of the present government. Nothing has been changed except a perception by some of the legitamacy of the name change. A complete change of government, especially with such short notice, would cause much too much confusion. SouthWriter 14:09, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
Nuclear Weapons
It has come to my awareness that there would be a handful of nuclear missiles in Montana. Read about the "Missiles protecting Missiles Plan" on SurivivalRing. Arstarpool 20:57, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
That is a good point. I am sure that the government of the United States, with consultation with former President George Bush, will be addressing this as they discuss the terms of League of Nation membership. I am not sure they will be wishing to disarm if it is shown, or even suspected, that Socialist Siberia still has weapons as well. I have not read the articles that mention "left over" nuclear weapons, but I don't thing that the United States would change its nuclear policy of "peace through strength," as last espoused by Ronald Reagan.SouthWriter 21:35, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
Largest City
Based on the history of Colorado it appears that you are right, Arstar, Ft. Collins is larger than Casper by all measures but one. What has happened since Doomsday? The population of Ft. Collins in 1980 was 65,092, an increase of over 50% from 1970. This was compared to Casper Wyo ming, which in 1980 had a population of 51,016 - an increase of just under 30% from 1970.
In OTL Ft. Collins would see continuing growth while Casper would see decline and slow growth. But would this have been the case in TTL? Starting with populations much closer in 1980, could the tables have turned. Wyoming was the center of the new nation, and it would have absorbed population from the destroyed capital and a greater rate than Ft. Collins, which was now the capital of a frontier fringe of the nation. I am not saying that Casper would have become the bigger of the two, but we can't rule it out. What cannot be assumed is that the population of Ft. Collins would have continued to grow to what it is in OTL.
Before we make such changes, we need to at least discuss them on the discussion page, rather than a line in the summary after the fact. I will need to confer with other editors who have done some work on the US, the NAU and Colorado to determine whether to revert the change. However, thanks for pointing out the discrepency. 98.84.1.25 21:20, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about the anonymous signature, I didn't know I'd been logged off. SouthWriter 21:25, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
But wouldn't Ft. Collins absorb more refugees, as most of Colorado was in shambles? Think about it, the population of Cheyenne would be around 35,000 (wild guess, no reasearch done at all), and the population would be destroyed. Let's say 5,000 people survived from the greater Cheyenne aera. They would have an entire state, one of the most undamaged in the country to settle in. Colorado, however, would not end up so. Ft. Collins would be the only "city" in the entire state to survive, and part of the least damaged part of the state, and would attract refugees from here, there, and everywhere to settle.
Then again, there's Billings, Montana, which could be the biggest city. Arstar 02:27, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
I am not really sure what made me choose Casper as the largest city, or even if it was me, for that matter. However, as the article states, Ft. Collins was cut off from any survivors of the eastern part of the state. Casper was a lot closer to Cheyenne than any of the bombed cities in Colorado were to Ft. Collins. By the way, Cheyenne had a population of 47, 283 in 1980. Most of the destruction was the extensive ground bombardment of the silos east and south of the city, raising the possibility of survivors in areas not hit directily. The AFB was a target, though, so an airburst there would have taken out the city nearby. I'd guess that perhaps as many as 10,000 may have survived - including the government (which escaped to Torrington).
Anyway, Casper was the closest large town, and would have been a haven as was Ft. Collins. It, like Ft. Collins, became the new capital of the state (that also being a draw to population). As you pointed out, Billings also could have become the largest city. That is where the government of that state ended up. In 1980 its population was 66,798, just a little bigger than Ft. Collins that year. However, Billings was in the middle of the Lakota war, and lost its Native American population to the new state of Absaroka (a land swap deal to form a buffer state). I game for Ft. Collins to succeed, but the change needed to be run past the rest of us first. I started a major edit of the article back in May (and added some in August), so its mostly "mine" by default. As for the survivors of eastern Colorado, I think they probably migrated to Kansas, but I haven't worked that out yet. SouthWriter 03:29, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
2010 Elections
I decided to add this here, though some of the results are open to challenge by other editors. The three new Republican governors follow OTL results except for McInnis in Colorado. I based his win on the fact that the other candidates were probably killed in 1983. McInnis had lost a close primary in OTL to the evential Republican nominee (who ended up loosing big in OTL). I suggest that we have the state of Idaho produce both a Democratic governor and a Democratic senator for balance. SouthWriter 17:44, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
In order to keep from getting too complex with the elections IMHO, we follow OTL trends when we can, but you've done a great job, South. Arstar 23:55, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
Man South! I was just about to suggest (soon to be) ex-Representative Walt Minnick for Senator. I disagree with Arstar, OTL is way too different to follow its political trends. As me and South had said before, American survivor nations are much more Conservative as the more Liberal cities are to put it bluntly, gone. With that said, Walt Minnick is a Conservative Democrat in OTL and will be a Conservative Democrat in this TL or else he would be unelectable on a statewide level. Same goes for most Democrats in this timeline running in congressional, state or federal elections. --Zack 01:03, November 25, 2010 (UTC)
I suggested Democrats for "Idaho" because southern Idaho is not as conservative as the panhandle. I pulled up Idaho County and found the election results for the general election and saw that Minnick had won in the county and was a Democrat. After looking him up, I saw that he was at heart an independent turned Democrat (and now a "blue dog" Dem voting "only 71%" with the party). The fact that he got beat lead me to the Republican who beat him. That lead me to the other Republican who Sarah (Heath) Palin had supported. Naturally, I pegged him (Vaughn Ward) as the Senator-elect for Lincoln. It all fell so easily in to place I jumped right in and filled the gaps I had left.
If anyone has time, they are welcome to do more research on any of these guys. For example Ward graduated from a southern Idaho high school in 1983 and then went out of state to school (returning in 1993). However, if he did not head directly to college, he would be in place (though not in Lincoln). Minnick was working in Boise, but lived in the suburbs and could reasonably be considered a probable (at least) survivor. It helps, though, not to probe too deeply (this is fiction, after all). I like to use recognizable folk who survived (or possibly could have survived) in my telling of 1983DD stories. SouthWriter 03:34, November 25, 2010 (UTC)
Reverting back to my last version
I'm sorry Alex, but the changes you made to the article removed the "flavor" I had put into it. If it had only been minor changes, I would have let it slide. I am also going to revert to my simpler map. Your map has "too much" information on it with no overt explanation. This article is canon, and any sudden major changes ought to come through the caretakers of the article. SouthWriter 05:06, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
Bakken Oil Fields
hey guys,I was recently skimming through the web and find a place called the Bakken Formation, covering parts of Montana, North Dakota, and Saskatchewan.A USGS report estimated the amount of technically recoverable oil using technology readily available at the end of 2007 within the Bakken Formation at 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels (680,000,000 m3), with a mean of 3.65 billion. The state of North Dakota also released a report that month which estimated that there are 2.1 billion barrels (330,000,000 m3) of technically recoverable oil in the Bakken.[ Various other estimates place the total reserves, recoverable and non-recoverable with today's technology, at up to 503 Billion barrels. That is almost twice the size of the Saudi oil reserves. The most recent estimate places the figure at 300 billion barrels or about 10% more than Saudi reserves.If this is true,then couldnt the new USA, and the Lakotaha be able to have greater stocks of fuel? Possibly allowing the USA to expand quickly and fuel a industrialized Economy and use fuel for their current Agricultural market? Just my thoughts on the subject.
Aren't these oil sands? If they are, then two questions have to be asked: a) was this Bakken Formation known to experts in the industry before Doomsday and b) does the technology exist in TTL 2011 to extract the oil? BrianD 05:31, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
It's not oil sands, but rather shale oil. Oil sands are only found in Siberia and parts of Canada.
According to its wikipedia article, the Formation has been known since the early 1950s, though not investigated on any great scale until the 1980s-1990s, and even that did not matter much until a few years ago. However, estimates with current otl technology are that we can only recover 1-50% (more towards 1%) of the oil there. At the present time otl, 458,000 barrels per day ate produced, largely due to new technology developed in 2008, and other tech largely developed in the 1990s. The first actual discoveries of oil in any significant amounts was in 2000.
As such, we can conclude that they do know about it, but at the same time cannot do anything about it. The NAU is going to be stuck with Alberta oil and gas for a while, however little it may amount to atl.
I agree that the USA would probably not have developed the tecnolgy to extract the oil, just yet. However, it is not a given that the technology of post doomsday America would not have made progress towards such solutions. Necessity is indeed the "mother od invention." Without access to foreign oil, the NAU would have put great emphasis on getting to the oil they knew was there. The Bakken Oil Fields cover much of Provisional Canada and Lakota, and only a little of the USA (and that mostly in Absaroka). These portions of the NAU are the least technically advanced, historically anyway, would be those with the oil. The resources o the surviving universities in the USA might be invaluable in the explotiation of these resources. The government researchers at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (now Idaho National Laboratory in OTL) would have certainly turned from nuclear research to geological research, for instance. Priorities change, leading to innovations unheard of in good times. SouthWriter 14:57, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the input guys,well I do believe the US would be able to recover at least some Oil from the formation ~anon
While progress has likely been made, it is still highly unlikely that they will be able to do so anytime soon. These people have only recently regained outside contact, remember. Lordganon 03:51, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
I did some research,and The Commonwealth of Kentucky processes Oil shale,and they know about the USA,so it is possible they shared technology.God Bless the United States of America 01:55, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
The member states of the NAU, which includes the Restored US, have only been known to the world since mid-2009. Meanwhile, Kentucky and the RUS have no easy way to communicate with each other. Finally, how often do nations just share tech with each other for no reason? Seriously, there is no reason right now for the US to try an exploit this oil. Mitro 01:59, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
It is mentioned that after contact between Kentucky and the USA,that the government of Kentucky considered using Fort Knox's Gold to unite America under the US again,and was a very big issue during Kentucky's 2010 election.The reason they would share technology is because that much of Kentucky's military and Fort Knox were original US military,and as such have a strong connection with the US,more so than other US military units absorbed by survivor nations,because of their important duties pre-doomsday,,and secondly,even if we are in different nations,we are all still Americans.And why would the US not try to exploit this Oil,we barely survived doomsday,and this Oil would provide a very strong economic platform for the US to grow on,becoming the new Saudi Arabia.
Certainly the Kentucky plan would have been to unite America, but under there conditions. They would not have simply handed the gold of Fort Knox to a collection of survivor states that claimed to be the restored US. And that is the key word there. You should read the history of this article and apply it to how the world would see it. Even if everything is true that does not mean people would believe it or care. Also as far as I can tell it would be incredibly costly to get this oil and it would not even come close to matching the reserves of Saudi Arabia. Sorry but this US is not going to become an oil superpower anytime soon. Mitro 03:13, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
A "new Saudi Arabia" is a bit much. As the caretaker of Kentucky you are right in saying that relations between Kentucky & the RUS were a major issue in the 2010 elections. However that does not mean that they are going to unite anytime soon. Now former President Bunning did visit the RUS when they were the PUSA in early 2010, that established diplomatic relations but all the oil business was mentioned tersely if at all. I can see a RUS-Kentucky reunification down the line but right now it is just not feasible. --Zack 03:14, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
I have read this history since it started.I was only making a suggestion,but if this contridictes everything in this point of the timeline,than just drop the subject entirely.Once again I state I drop this topic because of your status as editers.
For you to even come up with this means you have not read anything, except possibly a glance. End of Discussion. Lordganon 23:57, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
Other Industries
Montana's largest industries are agriculture (including both crops and livestock), travel and tourism, timber, and mining,in the form of oil and gas fields and rich coal deposits. Mining in the state of Montana includes coal production, petroleum, precious metals and natural gas.So why does Montana have to be limited to Farming?
Many factors changed with Doomsday, but nowhere in the articles on the US or Montana has that state been limited to farming. The heart of the state was bombed relentlessly in an attempt to keep a second wave of IBM's from launching, producing deadly fallout that spread to the southeast across much of the central area of the former USA. Fallout alone would cause a depopulation of the eastern part of the state. Then there was the Lakota War and subsequent dividing of the state to give Native Americans their own sovereign states. The best use of the land would have been farming. Tourism is out, for post-apocalyptic plans would be on survival, not travel. Timber harvesting is a kind of agriculture, so I'd say it would continue, and even increase in the rebuilding of society. Mining would come, and I am certain would be key in rejoining the world community. SouthWriter 17:56, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
How could they rebuild without mining for Metals? and including the article above about Bakken,they would also need more Oil than wha Nebraska is currently providing. ~anon
It's called Canada. There is lots of easily recoverable oil in Alberta and Saskatchewan, their partners under the NAU. It is assumed in several cases that they are mining. Just because something is not written does not mean it isn't occurring. After all, it is well-known that these minerals occur in parts of the region. Lordganon 03:51, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
Merge with USAR and Oil
when will the United States and United States Alantic Remnant merge? The New USA is the legitment successor to the Old US,and the USAR goal is to serve Americans in America,so shouldnt they merge? And if they did merge,they could extract and refine the Oil in the Bakken Formation,because the USAR is a major Oil refiner and the the Mainland US is sitting in large amounts of Oil,besides Bakken,there is around 2 Trillion barrels worth of Oil shale under the rocky mountains,so the merge,besides Uniting Americans,would help both Econmies. ~anon
It will take a long time. the USAR is in the Atlantic and the USA doesn't even have sea. And I think the USA will be more interested in further union of the NAU members rather than reclaiming the former US. Fedelede 01:10, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
I disagree,why would they declare themselves the successor state to the Orginial US if they werent trying to preserve this country's great history,but I do agree that it will take a long time until the US geta to a cean opening,probably the Missippi River. ~anon
The USA, while on record of trying to reclaim the former US, is indeed more interested in the NAU at the present.
If you read the history of the USAR, you would find that it is unlikely that they would, for some time, recognize the declared government on the mainland.
Drop the oil references, seriously. They may have made some progress towards the needed tech, but they definitely do not have it in the present atl.
How does media - newspapers, radio, television - look in the new USA? A few questions that come to mind immediately include the use of small print shops and printers to produce pamphlets and newspapers, perhaps as their 18th century predecessors did in the colonies. Another is the use of a modern-day Pony Express, not just to act as the PUSA/USA's Postal Service but to help spread news throughout the region. And, would radio currently consist of local stations (I did establish a 50,000-watt AM station in Billings, on the Communications and mass media page), or has someone tried to reestablish one of the pre-Doomsday networks? If not...are there grand plans to reestablish NBC, CBS, ABC and/or PBS? BrianD 06:05, March 26, 2011 (UTC)
As electricity was restored (I'm not sure how fast power plants and the grid could be repaired), printing presses would be one of the first things to be up and running. Paper mills and ink production would have to become operative as well. I like the idea of the Pony Express, but that leads me to wonder about the restoration of radios. Would only radios plugged into a power supply be affected, or would all transistors and capacitors be fried. Crystal radios would be easy enough to build after the fact, but what about the transmitters? I'm thinking that the USA would need to procure electronics from Victoria and the Provisional Canada to "kick-start" its electronic media. SouthWriter 16:03, March 26, 2011 (UTC)
Far as I can remember, the damage exists in both, but is far greater to anything plugged in when it occurs. Difference probably 95-100% of plugged in, and 50-75% not plugged in, depending on where they are stored. ProvCan and Victoria were hit by the same waves, however, so purchases would have to be in the last few years through Victoria, after they rebuild that segment of their own state. Lordganon 16:32, March 26, 2011 (UTC)
Though one would do, Mexico had been spared and I couldn't move the circle up enough, so I went with two (in red).
It also would depend on the intensity of the blasts and where in the nation the electronics were. The established blasts were at a lower altitude in two places, the one almost directly over Cheyenne Mountain, and the other over central Indiana. We decided on this so as to relieve Mexico City of the inconvenience of being blacked out as well. ProvCan would have been included, for the most part, but the Canadian part of Victoria was not included. ProvCan would have had equipment in the northern portions of its claimed territory, but not much to speak of. By the time the USA was trading with Victoria that nation would have completed rebuilding its formerly American southern end. Either way, though, the USA had to rebuild with the scarcest of materials. --SouthWriter 22:07, March 26, 2011 (UTC)
Ahh, but by that map, the southern, most populated, third of Vancouver Island is nailed by the EMP like ProvCan. More or less the same situation as there. But you're right about it being fixed by the time the USA started trading with them. Lordganon 01:25, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
Political views of The President
I was wondering which political party the incumbent Presidetnt, Ben "Nighthorse" Campell belongs too. While most of the new USA seems to be conservative, he is reported on his Wikipedia page to have been a Democrat until 1995. Would he have still made this change like in OTL? Or would the POD somehow affected his political views? Arstartalk 05:41, July 25, 2012 (UTC)
The change he made between the two parties seems to have been much more due to squabbling with more left-wing members of the Democratic Party... who are mostly dead, atl.
Remember, that in the west and south, especially in more rural areas - this part holds true elsewhere to some degree, but still mostly in the west and south - Democrats tend to be conservative still.
Atl, both parties would be on the "right" side of the spectrum in the new USA. Compared to otl, the Dems would be what we'd call centrists, with the Repubs in the same rough spot.
Ganon is spot on, Arstar. In the 80's Democrats began to change course nationally, eventually leading to defections such as Campbell's. In TTL Campbell had just become a state legislator and given that general session of the general assembly of Colorado runs from January through May, he would have been safe in southern Colorado on DD. Given the history of the US in TTL, to become prominent again his history would be drastically different. The government in Ft. Collins would not be particularly friendly to Native Americans, for instance, given the Lakota war. However, the new states set up by president Hunkins provided a compromise that would have allowed a slightly more liberal Campbell a platform to arise to prominence in defence of Native Americans loyal to the US.
I chose Campbell due to his prominence in OTL, so a new history would evolve to get him where he is in TTL. However, the fact that he is a Native American is suitable to the history of the US in the 1983DD universe. His presidency, in fact, might lend to better relations with Lakota. SouthWriter (talk) 18:45, July 25, 2012 (UTC)
2012 Presidential Election
I apologize for not getting back to it, but the primaries are surely over and the conventions are around the corner. My favorite for Republican candidate is Sarah Heath, but it's not my call. Who do you think the GOP supporters would chose in TTL? Heath or Brownback? Meanwhile, we need a Democratic candidate. Any politician from the eleven states (new ones included) is eligible.
May the best candidate win. SouthWriter (talk) 04:47, August 16, 2012 (UTC)
I think that they would choose Brownback. I just don't see Heath gaining popular vote in a world that is likely more sexist than ours. Brownback could likely select her as his running mate, though.
I'm currently doing research for Democratic nominees. I have to admit I'm not coming up with a whole lot of people. I haven't finished my research on him, but Ken Salazar might have survived.
On the other hand, do you think that the Oregon Democracy Coalition would submit a candidate? It would be interesting to see a third party go into power. Arstartalk 06:13, August 16, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Arstar. It looks like Salazar is a good candidate. He was not yet in politics in 1983, but became a moderate Democrat after becoming associated with Roy Romer. In 1983, Romer was the State Treasure after having been in the house of Representatives for several years. We'd have to determine if Romer survived, and if not, how Salazar would have arisen to prominence. As for the ODC, I don't think the candidate would win this time around, but a good showing might help the party spread in US politics. SouthWriter (talk) 18:32, August 16, 2012 (UTC)
Unless you object I am going to put a poll up on the main talk page regarding Brownback and Palin.
Also I've come up with several Native Americans, some politicians some not who could run for Democratic candidate.
