FANDOM


American Provisional Administration

Wouldn't this fall under the jurisdiction of the American Provisional Administration post-Doomsday? Then all the territories would become independent or associate themselves with another state, like ANZC. Caeruleus 01:48, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

No, the APA was only based in the Pacific. Puerto Rico is independent, and the US Virgin Islands are ECF-Associated, but they can still govern Navassa Island, Gitmo, and the US Virgin Islands (to a certain extent for the USVI though). If you want, you can work on it with me and help me fill it in more. Arstarpool 01:50, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Gitmo would be overrun by the Cubans the moment the missiles were detected by Cuban radar systems. Navassa Island would probably reach out and join Haiti or Jamaica or everyone there would die of starvation. And if Puerto Rico is indenpedent and the US Virgin Islands are associated with the ECF, what's the point? Not to tear you down or anything, but it seems unrealistic and unnecessary. Caeruleus 02:25, August 21, 2010 (UTC)


I have to agree with Caeruleus. Gitmo would be under Cuban control (as discussed on the South Florida talk page) and if there were any American soldiers left alive, they would have left Cuba a long time ago. Also you are forgetting the Gathering Order. Any American naval forces would have made their way to Australia. Mitro 03:37, August 21, 2010 (UTC)


With all due respect to the Gathering order, I think that the the immediate situation at Guantanamo Bay would probably have come to a head before that controversial call by the Bush administration. Facing confusion at the loss of most of their government, the Cubans may have not had been able to respond by invading a heavily armed US Naval base. The forces there would have held their own, probably having been on high alert like every other base in and around the US at the time. The nuclear blast at Santiago would have provided enough confusion on the eastern side of the island.
By the end of 1983, the forces at Guantanamo would have implemented emergency maneuvers throughout the Caribbean, most likely first on Hispaniola and Jamaica. At the same time radio contact with US forces on Puerto Rico and in the US Virgin Islands would have established a network among all US citizens in the islands - both US and foreign owned. Little Navessa Island, however, would probably be ceded to Haiti in the name of international harmony rather than become a strategic resettlement location.--SouthWriter 23:41, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
A quick comment, I will not give up Navassa Island, as it is one of the few islands that the USAR will control should Zack not allow me to use the USVI. Instead, Navassa would house a small port/Navy base and a little community around Lulu Town, nothing more. Besides, as I can see Haiti fared worse in this timeline than in real life! Arstarpool 23:49, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Gitmo would be overrun by the Cuban forces stationed outside it. That's the one thing the Cubans were ready to do throughout the Cold War. Idk about Navassa Island. An island that small and isolated would have a very difficult time surviving. I could see the population easily dying from famine. Caeruleus 23:52, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, wrong. When a nearby city essentially gave Gitmo a "radioactive shield", plus a mine field and a cactus curtain it would be impossible, and literally impossible for the Cuban forces to take over. Believe me, I am both a Cuban-American and an American who has had family in the US military since the American Civil War, and every war after it. So when Santiago was nuked the Cubans would not be like "okay, our families just got blown up, lets go kill the greengos!' they would probably be busy choking on radioactive dust and crying for their families. And the Cuban military put together is about the size of the Tennessee National Guard I read once, so they would not be in a position to take over.
And Navassa Island is uninhabited. However, after only today asking an inside source I found out that Navassa Island was the "back-up Gitmo" in case the Cubans took over Gitmo. Arstarpool 23:58, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Okay...? The Cubans would bomb Gitmo as soon as the missiles were picked up on radar, so it would certainly see significant damage from that. Also, I'm pretty sure the Cubans stationed a large military force outside Gitmo that was ready to assault the base at any time. Even with nuclear strikes in the distance, there's no reason why they wouldn't assault Gitmo.

And if Navassa Island is the "back up Gitmo," that could make for an interesting article, but I still see the whole USAR idea unnecessary. Caeruleus 00:03, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

You are over-estimating the Cubans forces. They are a weak and cowardly army that are not even well-fed sometimes! The Cactus Curtain and the Mine Field was/is not like the DMZ between North and South Korea. The Cubans are just mad that they have the Americans have a piece of their soil and probably would attack it, but the Mine Field and the Cactus Curtain guaranteed that they would never enter the base. Arstarpool 00:12, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Arstar here, Caer. The Cuban would not have had the troop strength nor the air power in the wake of the unprovoked attack by the US missiles. I doubt if the military would have had time once they realized that they had been targeted. It's not like they'd have much time, being as close as they are to the silos in Missouri. With all those missiles in the air, picking one out and judging its trajectory would probably have been impossible anyway.
The "back up Gitmo" angle is unusual, but it does not show up on the Navassa article on Wikipedia. Your inside info needs to be sourced before we chance that in this time line. I wrote it out of the synopsis I just put on the American diaspora article in favor of Jamaica. We would need the resources of that friendly island so close to Cuba.--SouthWriter 01:17, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
Well, if Gitmo can't be taken by Cuban forces, rhen this is viable. It'll be interesting to see it when complete. Caeruleus 03:02, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
Even if Gitmo cannot be taken immediately after Doomsday, it makes no sense that it wouldn't happen later. We are talking about an isolated military outpost that is cut off from its nation. We have soldiers who have no idea if their families are even alive and no supplies are likely to be arriving anytime soon. In all likelihood Gitmo would have been abandoned and it would have been occupied by the Cubans once they restored order to the island. Mitro 17:53, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Flag

I think the flag is inappropriate. This Remnant is not a nation, as such, but rather a group of Americans, acting on orders of the US government in time of need. I am not sure how this will work out in connection with the Gathering Order, but in those months after Doomsday it could have been a plan that helped organize Americans outside the "kill zone" on the mainland. If any flag was used during this period, it would have been the 50-star US flag (as was flown by the APA and the PUSA during that period).


If this is meant to represent the present day configuration of the Remnant, then perhaps some sort of flag can be flown by those conclaves of Americans that refuse to be assimilated after the Gathering Order officially calls their protectors away. Which brings up the "mutiny" question again. Would the Caribbean forces consider abandoning known US survivors to bolster the government a half a world away? SouthWriter 02:18, August 22, 2010 (UTC)


It is the American equivalent of the RTFA. That is as simple as I can put it. The soldiers at Gitmo helped unite the American people scattered throughout the small abundance of Atlantic Territories under a single, functioning government that promises to keep America alive in the Atlantic, but only as it would be practical for the Virgin Islands, Navassa, Gitmo, and any other territory. However once the Gathering Order was sent out the troops were dumbfounded on whether they should set out or to stay and protect the Americans they can. About a third of the soldiers set out, although only a fraction of them reached Australia. However those that did notified the APA of the Remnant's existence, but due to communication difficulties the Remnant stayed detached from the APA.

However the Puerto Ricans, although they no longer had the American tit to suck the sweet milk of welfare money from, used this to establish themselves as an independent nation out of the hands of America. Rather than fight a bloody war, a demarcation line was set between mainland Puerto Rico and the "Puerto Rico Virgin Islands", with the Remnant keeping the PRVI. However, the East Carribean Federation was founded soon after. In order to keep themselves better cared for, the Remnant decided to join the Federation under special conditions which allowed them more wiggle room than the other members.

In the present day, they control the following areas:

Gitmo

US Virgin Islands

Puerto Rico Virgin Islands

Navassa Island

As you can see they have a small sphere of control, so I want a flag that is based on these lands. Arstarpool 02:41, August 22, 2010 (UTC)


I don't think it will work, but it is a great idea. This is going to have to be a loose-knit organization rather than a string of islands making up a "Micro-America" in the Atlantic. Even if it can work, there probably cannot be a presense in either Guantanamo or Navassa Island. Guantanamo would almost certainly be considered Cuban territory after the unprovoked attack on the island by at least two nuclear bombs. The treaty of 1902 would certainly have been considered broken by this provocation. As for Navassa, the island is tiny and too close to a voliatle Haiti for a safe haven for Americans. Any settlement there would be dependent on Jamaica for support anyway.
I have not sought to edit this article yet, but I am working on what I hope is canon-friendly changes to the "American diaspora" article that I hope can incorporate this idea. It is far better to work with the group than insert novel or unique concepts into the established time line. I think the US Armed forces of the Caribbean, lead by the Guantanamo Bay command, can be a big help in stablelizing the American diaspora (aka Remnant) in the area. But forming a new nation out of those people is not the way to go. SouthWriter 03:09, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

How About Now?

I've answered most if not all questions regarding plausibility, so I will show the answer to those questions.

Wouldn't Navassa Island be Haitian? No, they would not be. Haiti would have as bad as an American survivor state without any food imports and would be focusing on keeping their own borders from collapsing. Anyways, the remnant was formed in 1983 so if they did try to conquer it they would be slaughtered by the Americans.


What is the meaning of "keeping their own borders from collapsing? And wouldn't December of 1984 be a little early to form this organization? SouthWriter 05:29, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
Well, there are many rival militant factions in Haiti, each fighting against each other, so basically it would be a miracle if the Haitan government managed to keep the whole place under control.


They could not be a "Micro-America": Well, they are not a nation, rather a bunch of united territories. They are associated with the ECF, but separate in many ways. And the Remnant is only made up of the Spanish VI, US VI, Navassa, and Gitmo! And only three are populated, so they would be pretty close-knit together and would not stray.


If it is not meant to be a "micro-America," then why did the military establish a capital city, a distinct flag, and government officials? SouthWriter 05:29, August 29, 2010 (UTC)


Gitmo would be seized: I laugh at this question. As I once read, the Cuban military is about a little bit weaker than the Tennessee National Guard, and there are over 3,000 US Troops at Gitmo, and a mine field, and the Cactus Curtain, so any Cuban that makes it trough will be shot on sight. Read up before you object.


Why do you assume you are an expert on Cuba and the policy of the US military at Guantanamo Bay? SouthWriter 05:29, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
Did I ever say that? No. You can learn a lot from retired soldiers and Wikipedia. I'm no expert, but I pretty much know the most about the base of everyone here. Arstarpool 23:09, August 29, 2010 (UTC)


Hey! USVI is ECF Territory: I had Zack's permission under certain conditions to use them, so that is my answer to that question.


Why do you think you can manipulate previously established material for your own purposes? SouthWriter 05:29, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify something, I said Arstar could use the USVI so long as it did not contradict canon. --GOPZACK 22:18, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
Did I violate canon whatsoever? No. No canon was contradicted because in reality the USVI are not mentioned in the entire timeline other than the word appearing on older versions of the ECF. And Zack, the caretaker and contributor of the ECF allowed me to "use" the USVI so long as they were associated with the ECF in some way. Arstarpool 23:09, August 29, 2010 (UTC)


Please do not post a whole paragraph on why you disagree. Post small answers and post them tone neutral in question form and I will get to them below. Arstarpool 23:17, August 28, 2010 (UTC)


Your request to answer with questions "tone neutral" was a bit odd. It is very hard to disagree just by posting short questions. I am sorry if my questions seem anything but "tone neutral." It just seems that you are "trying to hard" to get your way on this. SouthWriter 05:29, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Adoption

I'll adopt it, otherwise, this worthy effort will have to be marked obsolete. I say that because it's creator has done what he can with it, but has not met the key objections that the community has brought against it. This is not meant as a slight on the creator's attempts, but the look and feel of the article may change quite a bit to bring it in line with what had been before this article was proposed. SouthWriter 17:20, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

I've decided to go it alone, thank you. I am, however, willing to reach a compromise between how you percieve the USAR and how I percieve it. I have seen it cannot govern all the territories, but at the same time I do not like your idea of it essentially becoming the "CRUSA" of the Caribbean. Anything in between may, just may be okay with me. Arstar 02:17, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Why didn't you send this to my talk page. I completely missed it until today. And that AFTER I finally began working on the article. I am going to send the work I did on it this afternoon to my sandbox and let you see what you think. I am disappointed that you did not seek further discussion (I see you took out a lot about Guantanomo, but have not given up on it). The article will not work with Guatanomo remaining.
However, I did notice that the US Virgin Islands are NOT listed on the ECF page, so it is reasonable to locate the USAR as the "provisional" government in the USA (the only 'legitimate' one until they learn of the re-instituted USA). By the way, I don't see any reason why the reunification of the USAR can't be immediate. Any way, so my work this afternoon and evening won't go to waste, it is for view by all at my sandbox. I am sorry that I did not notice this last month when you decided to deny the "adoption" plea to me, Arstar. I hope that we can work together, now, to make this idea a reality. SouthWriter 03:12, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
PS, I completely misread the timestamp! I struck through instead of deleted to remind myself of how flawed I am. A little humiltiy goes along way, you know. Anyway, I still hope we can work together. SouthWriter 03:19, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
I will combine the current revision on the actual page with your sandbox revision to create a compromise on my sandbox. We both have different views on what would happen, but I think we can meet halfway on something decent. But there's no way Haiti (of all places!) would be able to take control of Navassa. They would be weaker or on par to with an American survivor state (they were already starving so I can't see how the could survive further without international aid). Just because some "third world" nations in this TL are more powerful than in OTL, this does not apply to Haiti which is just as weak or weaker in this timeline. But I recomend you read the Haiti article through and then tell me what you think. Navassa Island has limited freshwater resources so it would be hard for them to maintain a military presence, but the ECF could possibly help the USAR establish something on the island.

PS: When we reach a compromise you will have full caretaker rights on the article. I'm just sticking with it to see through it fits in the loose framework of how I originally thought of it as. Arstar 03:32, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

The USVI have been listed as part of the Caribbean Federation since the beginning. If you look at the bottom of the versions before August 2010 the last bullet point says "US and British Virgin Islands." So while technically a breach of canon, the fact that the ECF is very underdeveloped (one of XiReney's early stubs) gives it a little more "wiggle room." Plus, this idea is very, very cool.
But regarding the Guantanamo base: the biggest question is, how do the troops eat? Where does their fuel and power come from? And why was the base not a target, anyway? If it were not a nuclear target, why would the Cubans hurl themselves across the Cactus Curtain rather than simply blockade it? At the very least, you'd think the Gitmo troops would take what they could and relocate someplace where they were not surrounded by a large perpetual enemy. And that was 27 years ago, mind. Where are the fresh troops coming from? There are just too many factors against the Americans at Gitmo to explain it away by saying, "The Cubans are weak and cowardly."
On a related note: There were survivors among the Americans in Panama. I wrote, "The Americans were also soon torn by factions of their own, with many choosing to cross the isthmus to make their way out of the country. Many ended up in former American territory in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Those troops that remained were soon indistinguishable from the other guerrilla groups fighting for advantage in the countryside." In light of this, I'll change this part so that almost all of the Americans who left Panama ended up in the VI's, or even Navassa.
I agree that Haiti would have neither the means to take Navassa, nor any reason to try. Bigger problems, and all that. Benkarnell 03:34, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, guys, I made slight changes to South's revision and my revision. This is my "compromise", tell me what you think? It gives up Gitmo which is the main objection and keeps Navassa. Arstar 03:51, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
I'm still surprised Gitmo wasn't a nuclear target. The logic of the arms race was that it didn't matter that it was located on an island favorable to the USSR: you just blew up everything. Benkarnell 04:03, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Ben, but we have it established that they survived. Now I've compromised with Arstar and I think we can make this work. The troops do not stay in Cuba, but leave for Navassa (I assume) and for the USVI. We can haggle over whether the USVI are to be sovereign or just autonoumous, but the "military government will suffise for now. SouthWriter 05:23, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I like this a lot. But established where? I really want to know why. It just seems that Guantanamo would be one of the very most obvious targets. Benkarnell 05:55, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Government

There's not much on the government yet. It seems to me that the USAR would have a very militarized government. By now probably democracy has been instituted, but the military were the ones who founded the state, and are no doubt the real power behind the government. I can imagine most of the elected officials being men with military backgrounds, including a great many who enlisted after the mid-80s. And most of the new guard are probably black West Indians who speak a creole. That's my take on it, anyway. Benkarnell 04:01, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Bravo! Yes it is a heavily militaristic society. My guess goes loosely at around a fifth of the soldiers are White Hispanics or Caucasians. Remember it was the twilight of that years tourist season so there would still be thousands of whites from abroad. And the rest are most likely Afro-Caribeans who speak a new dialect, Virgin Islands English, as their main native language. The VI Creole language was already beginning the process of decreolization (as of 2010 most of the younger black generation in the USVI speak a mix of American English and the VI Creole) and as a successor to the United States the government probably encourages American English. But my guess is that 40% speaks Virgin Islands English, 20% American English, 30% Creole, 5% Spanish and 5% Queen English.

The soldiers probably are 75% blacks with the rest Whites or White-Hispanic like I said above. Arstar 04:54, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Panamanian survivors

Do you mind if I add a short section about the survivors from Panama? Benkarnell 04:01, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Sure. By the way, what do you think would be the USAR's glance on the Panama Canal? Would they claim it, be a joint-control member, or just leave it to the South Americans? Arstar 04:22, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's no way they could be a joint-control member. The canal was refurbished entirely by Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela, and they have jealously guarded their status as the "builder nations." But would the USAR claim it? That's tricky. Here's what I think. If the USAR wants any hope of using the canal for commercial purposes, they'd have to drop their claim. But maybe they're small enough that they have no reason to use the canal: in that case they may as well keep claiming it! What have they got to lose? Benkarnell 05:22, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
The miltary government, turned democratic (see above), would probably not wish the bother of "claiming" all of the former US' territories. Carter had signed the treaty back in the 70's that honored the 99 year lease. The rebuilding of the canal gives those that rebuilt it control (along with LoN oversight). Trade going out of St. Thomas would mostly be in the Atlantic, so they would have no big reason to use the canal. When they needed to go to ANZC, the trip is just as close to go around Africa. When trade begins with the Pacific Rim, I suppose some they will want to be on good relations with the SAC. But by then, they will be part of the USA, and new treaties will be made for use of the canal that has gone over into the hands of its rebuilders (and according to treaty out of US control in 1999). SouthWriter 05:34, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
Good point about Carter's lease. The ANZC's claim on the Canal Zone was based on some very shaky interpretations of that treaty (basically, that ANZC = USA, but Colombia =/= Panama). So you're right: the Atlantic Remnant would definitely not claim the Canal. Its commercial use would be covered by the League of Nations-brokered treaty saying "the SAC may not discriminate against the ships of any nation passing through the Canal Zone, except in case of war." Benkarnell 05:44, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
Are you going to write the section or not? Arstar 20:19, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

constitutionality

In such an insanely unusual time of war, I'm not sure that the constitutionalality of the president's actions would be what would raise the most ire. The abandonment would be the problem, but surely with nuclear hell raining down, Reagan/Bush/whoever had the authority to do rather extraordinary things. No? Benkarnell 20:24, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

I suppose so. Under the War Powers clauses a lot of things are done - with or without constitutional authority. However, General Order 0001-1984 was technically not in a time of war. The government, in the name of its own security, was calling its troops away from their duty "on the front lines" as it were to bolster its own existence in exile. Those troops stranded in Europe and South America (west coast) may have been one thing, but those in the Caribbean had ports of call all over the east and south of the US. Their first duty would have been to the US, not to the president thereof. I think a case could have been made to a federal court -- if one could be found. SouthWriter 21:13, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
No court would hear such a case due to the political question doctrine. Furthermore the President is the Commander in Chief for a reason. The soldiers' duty would be to follow his orders. Mitro 21:15, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
Okay. The case might be questionable, but an unlawful order must not be followed. The reason for the recall was primarily to maintain "control" of American resources around the world. If that meant leaving one's primary duty -- protecting the people and contstitution - then it could be considered unlawful. The case would certainly see action in the lower courts. SouthWriter 21:29, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
No it wouldn't. No lower court would hear it because of the political question doctrine, any judge would dismiss the case immediately (granted after a nuclear war I doubt there will be a federal judge nearby to decide, but for the sake of this argument lets go with it). The president's discretion to use the military has only a few limitations. Furthermore the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution prevents the judiciary from interfering with the president's decisions regarding the use of the military, hence the political question doctrine. Even Congress is limited in second-guessing a president's action. Also considering that the US was attacked and there was no formal peace treaty, the President did not have to wait for a declaration of war by Congress. Certainly Reagan/Bush's decisions post-Doomsday could be considered unpopular, but there is nothing unconstitutional about it. Ben's right, the soldiers are going to be more pissed about being abandoned than violating the constitution. Mitro 03:04, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
I will defer to the lawyer. It seems a reverse of all the cases where such an authority was taken on by the commander-in-chief, though. All other cases, the president has called the troops INTO action, not away from duty to some new duty. What Bush was doing, presumedly without a congress, is dubious, but apparently legal. If he knew about Reagan's orders to Cheyenne Mountain, though, the Order shows his deceit. It may be "unfair" to the former president (in OTL and in TTL) to assume he would have done this selfishly, but the man was (and I guess still is) a pragmatist. The creation of the APA was probably the "unconstitional" part. But that is another discussion. SouthWriter 15:52, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
Well (and here I am grousing again) there was nothing selfish about it when that part of the story was written. There was no more USA to defend. Everybody was dead. (The Virgin Islands would have been an exception, and te USAR is a very unexpected and very cool addition to the story IMHO.) But if we had stuck to the original story, we wouldn't have created this obvious dissonance. Benkarnell 21:52, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
How true. I just went over the old "History of Post-Doomsday USA" page [ends abruptly just as the "explosion" of new USA articles began in November of 2009]. Xi-Reney's vision (I know he wasn't the creator) got ammended as more American and Canadian writers (like myself), got wind of the project. But with all due respect to Xi, the nuclear exchange would not have been as devasting as he envisioned. The Russian hero who prevented it from happening estimates that only 30% of America's infrastructure would have been destroyed. Our scenario come close to that, with the added EMPs knocking out practically all the electronics. The estimate of only 28 million US survivors (in NA) seems to hold true (most of the major population centers having been hit). Certainly not the vast desert envisioned in the early versions. SouthWriter 03:28, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic Mix

I grew up in the US Virgin Islands (on St. Thomas, if that matters) and in the mid-late 1980s the ethnic mix, while largely black in makeup was not simply black/white/hispanic. There was (especially on St. Thomas) a large (growing and thriving) population of folks whose derivation was Middle Eastern or Indian. Many of them were very active in the retail business (a great many of the jewelery shops in Charlotte Amalie were (and are today in OTL) owned by members of this ethnic group. I'm curious as to their status in the post DD world. There was also, on St. Thomas, a large (well, for that part of the world) Hasidic Jewish community: The only temple on St. Thomas had, at that time, an Hasidic Jew named Stanley Relkin (I met him a few times) as Rabbi, and he would definitely have worked hard to hold that small community together. Thoughts? 159.91.202.136 21:03, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. The ethnic mix should not be a problem with the establishment of a pro-American government on a legally self-governing territory of America. Though the troops that established the USAR in the Virgin Islands might not be of the same mix (though they might be), all ethnic groups that were citizens of the United States would be under the protection and guidance of the USAR. Those there on visas would most likely be made citizens of the Islands if they wanted to stay. As for the Jewish community, it would not suffer a bit, but rather would grow stronger due to its communitiy spirit.
By the way, please let us know your user name, for responding to a number is a little disconcerting. :)
SouthWriter 02:38, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Thought I was logged in yesterday when I posted this :-) SunEagle 13:20, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

No More Gimo

I have removed the line about claim to Gitmo since the troops abandoned the base. See the Wikipedia article. SouthWriter 21:11, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

Rejoining the USA?

How does that make sense? The claimant to the USA on the plains doesn't even have a coastline, let alone one on the Atlantic. This would mean a island state, with no link to the rest at all. That makes no sense, what-so-ever. Heck, it doesn't even make sense to have the president of the "USA" there, given all things. Lordganon 08:27, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

It has been established that the USA does exist and that it does have a president. The USAR has long been assumed to be willing to join up with the legitimate US government wherever it may be, even if it does not have a coast line. There is not a need for a coastline to have remote states, especially when other states with a coastline are also in the process of considering rejoining the USA as well. With friendly relations with Texas, the USA has access to the coast. The same goes for Louisiana and adjoining Natchez. Whereas Texas will more than likely remain independent, Louisiana has a lot to gain by joining back with the US while remaining an ally with Texas.
I am not sure how to take you, LG. You seem to have an agenda that you want to push on the rest of us. Though I respect your knowledge of history, it does not follow that your logic and reasoning is superior to mine. I thoroughly research my articles, and then discuss them with others before posting any drastic changes. I take into account "canon" and have defended the use of canon as our standard time and time again. This time line changed direction months before you joined the team, LG, and the state of the survival of the North American continent has taken a turn toward the optimistic. So, like it or not, these states are going to advance into the 21st century before this time line is abandoned. SouthWriter 16:29, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
I am going to have to agree with LG, and this comes from someone who has been on this project longer than both of you and the person who began to campaign to change the view of what happened to North America. It is impractical for the Remnant to rejoin the US. Even if they have every intention of reuniting with a legit government, I feel the leaders of the Remnant would hold it off until the ability became practical. It is hard for me to believe that the regular citizens of the Remnant would be okay with surrendering their sovereignty to a landlocked nation on the Great Plains unless there was some benefit they could receive. Patriotism can only get people so far before realism sets in.
Canon also states that only recently has the USA gotten access to the Pacific with that multinational railroad project. No similar project has happened with the Gulf states, and since much of the area between Texas, Louisiana and the USA is full of small states (with brigands and nomads as well), my guess is that the infrastructure is just not good enough to support such a long distance relationship, despite friendly relations between the Gulf Coast states and the US.
I don't think it is impossible for the Remnant to rejoin the US as a state, I just think it is unlikely to happen before the US gains a coast of their own. Mitro 17:16, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
I have come to respect you, Mitro, but the Remnant does not have "sovereignty" in the truest sense. The USAR is a government overseeing US citizens loyal to the USA, and sworn to reunite when and if the USA is re-established. The state of the Virgin Islands elected in this time line to be overseen by this government in the absent of the USA. What does it take to be "practical" now that both air travel and radio communications have been re-established? Access via a physical port should not be the determining factor. However, the only reason I wrote this into the article is it is a part of several edits I am making to bring the spread of the USA closer to reality. As you yourself have done with the new article, change is not only possible, but inevitable. I will remark at that talk page as to the way I think that might happen. SouthWriter 17:56, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

It's just not practical at this time. We're all aware of the desires of the locals, but as Mitro pointed out, why would they join up with a government that is unable to get in touch, etc? And you assume that governments would let them fly over, which really doesn't work out, and that the claimant USA even has planes. Nor has it been said anywhere that they have radio contact. I could see the government holding a vote now with regards to rejoining in the future when it is feasible, but re-joining before then? That's akin to, say, the Canaries, voting to join Bolivia. While the locals would love if the USAR rejoined this USA, even they could recognize that it would be in name only.

South, what have I told you about being insulting? Did you not notice that I have an extremely valid objection here, and am trying to keep the arguing confined elsewhere? The talk pages aren't canon, and the articles are. My agenda is what canon says. Simple as that.

Lordganon 02:31, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

First, I was not did not insult you or anyone else. I simply questioned your motives. Second, what place do you have to "tell [me} about" anything? You are not my boss and certainly not my parent. You are not even my elder (either chronologically or on this wiki).
As for the validity of your point, I have made the same points -- I support canon, but see the circumstances that you call "canon" as points open for debate. Why would American states, though independent, deny fly over rights to other American states. Only hostile intent would cause such action by minor city-states and even larger nation-states. Why should a nation the size of the USA, with friendly relations with other nations within the NAU, not have planes (at least for the military and government)? Radio contact has been established by tiny Cape Girardo and twenty-five years. Besides the resources of the US armed forces in bunkers have long ago shown that the USA. The USAR has radio contact with the whole world (short wave if not otherwise), and the working radio systems from Cheyenne Mountain, if none else, would be sufficient to make contact with those working systems.
I am totally willing to work within canon, but arguments from silence, as you are making here, are not valid. Alliances with neighboring states as Louisiana has with Texas, do not forgo the possibility of rejoining the USA which also has friendly relations with that same neighbor. The USA is not attempting to "take over" anyone, though claims from history give the nation the right to expect nations originally formed as "provisional" to at least consider the evidence of the continuing USA. Yes, until more agreements are signed and alliances re-established, the will of the people known as the Remnant will be in "name only," but that does not mean it is not so. The USAR authorities will have the same authority they have had for decades even as the Virgin Islands become a state of the US (if they actually do). SouthWriter 03:28, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

You really don't notice when you insult people on here, do you South? I suggest you re-read everything you've responded to me with. And now, you've started more squabbling here too, good job.

I did not tell you anything. That's your phrase, and your actions, not mine.

My motive here is simply that it makes no sense. Nothing more, nothing less. You've just taken it in a completely misconstrued way, much like I kinda figured you would. Seriously, calm down.

There is no point at all to them holding anything. They've been effectively a provisional state government since the 1980s - why on earth would they want to change that, meaning that they do have to listen to someone, even if it is only a technicality? It is illogical. I'm all for the USA claimant expanding, but there is a logical way to do it.... and that's not this.

Lordganon 11:26, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

The new United States is on the cusp of gaining access to the Pacific, but I frankly think it barely changes anything. It is still ridiculously impractical for contact to be made with the USAR. I think that by the time contact is practical, let alone easy, the USAR will likely have moved on. Yank 01:55, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

They already do have access to the Pacific as of 2 weeks ago when they annexed Oregon. Sure, they cant run and operate a pair of islands thousands of miles away from a tiny port in the Pacific, but given how word of the NAU has already gotten around I don't see how contact is impractical.

I do realize now how difficult it will be for the Remnant to become a State at this point in time, but given how the Atlantic Remnant already recognizes Torrington as the legitimate successor government some sort of official relationship is inevitable. I'm thinking somewhere along the line of a "one country, two governments" system, whereas they both have the same Constitution, Federal Laws, etc. but for practicalities sake the Charlotte Amalie retains the right to act as federal government for the areas governed by the Remnant.

And why would the USAR have "moved on"? The best card in the Remnant's deck is the fact that it is a Remnant government of the United States of America. And even if the Virgin Islands were to develop a nationalistic movement, theres still the tens of thousands of American expats in South America and the Caribbean who are Remnant citizens as well as the large military presense on the islands themselves. They simply would lose any regional authority they have now if they did not claim the American title. Arstar talk 02:56, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Several thousand miles by air, and even more by water, with the latter only through territory controlled by other states. And radio traffic between the two would be subject to interference, given the distance and lack of radio towers over much of that distance.

As I've said before: why on earth would they give up any of their authority - which is what you're suggesting, Arstar - to another government, for no gain? No one would do that.

The locals of the Virgin Islands would outnumber whatever number of expats there is in the area, by a large margin - and really, most of those expats are in other countries and wouldn't have any say. Simply put, they don't live there. And because of that, their opinions are moot.

Now I'm not saying a reunion is impossible. Far from it. But it won't happen anytime soon, or be entirely peaceful. The locals, remember, have had a long time without the US government.

Lordganon (talk) 03:37, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

It has already been written that the US Virgin Islands and part of Puerto Rico have been established under the authority of the territorial governments in place in 1983. Tiny Navassa Island, with the help of Jamaica, has been settled as a military base and city. There is some question as to whether it will be considererd a "territory" apart from the eventual state of the Virgin Islands, though. As of now it appears that the VI will not be joining. This means that there needs to be some rewriting of the text that indicates that the statehood bit was successful. I suggest the the US Congress rejects it because of the distance. The "locals" were American citizens in 1983 and this did not change under the government set up by the USAR. It may eventually choose independance like PR did, but that is not the intention of Arstar and myself. Plausibilty issues will determine the outcome.

In my opinion, the idea that radio contact would be spotty at this late date is faulty. Even sattelites have been launched in recent times, though I'd say that towers Florida, Neonotia, Lousianna and Texas (to name a few) are sufficient to relay signals from the islands. I wonder why we should assume that American nation states would be adversarial in communications between them. The US has made it clear that it is not out to conquer anyone. Why should associate states much further from each other than Nebraska, US, and the USAR (namely Hawaii and Alaska) be any more likely than what is being proposed here? When the US originally acquired California, for instance, there was no radio, much less a canal or even a railroad! Even the acquision of Alaska and Hawaii did not have the advantage of radio in the 19th century. These distances are not a hindrance in the Pacific of this time line, so why should they be a hindrance for the USAR?

SouthWriter (talk) 01:25, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

And given the rights the locals had, and still have, their status as "American citizens" is a technicality. That they would feel differently than the rest is pretty much a given.

Actually, it isn't faulty, by and large.

Using a large number of repeaters, and under the most ideal conditions, hi-powered radios - without the use of satellites, remember - can't go more than 1500 miles or so. And at that range, even when working under those conditions, it's pretty spotty. Add to that that as far as I know, signals sent out are weaker going north than going south.

Towers of that nature would only just now be starting to be built. Nor are they going to be all that efficient, realistically, compared to otl ones.

By a really round-about way, they can get signals over there - transferring between towers and operators in many different nations. And that isn't contact, realistically.

At this point, there is not any "old" satellites worth that title in the Northern Hemisphere. And a very limited number of new ones, many of which are on the other side of the world. Between that, they aren't going to be very useful here for contact.

No one has assumed - except maybe Yank - that the remnant states are adversarial to them in that way. But no matter how good things are between them, going between them to talk to other parts of your nation are not a method for meaningful contact.

Alaska and Hawaii have direct shipping routes to the rest of the ANZC, and modern radios, with all the relay towers involved. The Virgin Islands and the new USA don't have that luxury at this point.

By telegraph, rail, and steamship, the rest of the USA had a few days delay in communication with the West Coast, and a couple of weeks for shipped goods. Pretty good for that era. And there's a good reason why faster methods were constantly being put into use.

Alaska and Hawaii had the telegraph. Which we don't have between these two areas in question atl, either.

The Pacific has modern communications abilities, underwater cables, and easy shipping. Even with Oregon included, the new USA-USAR connection has none of that.

Lordganon (talk) 06:23, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

Citizenship is across the board in the USVI, and I do not see why they would feel differently when the link with Washington was broken. But then, that is my opinion. The Afro-Caribbean majority naturally has its own culture, and might indeed prefer to be independent given the loss of contact. However, the way we have written the article that is not the case.

As for radio contact, we have not considered shortwave radio which can skip off the ionosphere (by now I would assume that has stabilized from the disruption 29 years ago). Even given the 1500 mile limit for a boosted signal, as you indicate radio operators in unaffected areas (the Caribbean and Mexico, for instance) could get messages north to Texas from which communication with Torrington would be relatively easy. Nowadays communication with Florida would be routine; and communications with Jamaica, the Bahamas and even Bermuda would have continued from DD onward. From Jamaica, a friend of the USAR, a signal could easily reach Texas and then on to Torrington.

As for satellites, I was assuming satellites that have been deployed since resumption of the space program, though some of the old ones are in stable geosynchronous orbits in the western hemisphere. All satellites in lower orbit cover the total earth eventually by the very nature of there orbits. Observation of these orbits, along with agreements with the operators of these satellites would be enough to make broadcasts when needed. There is no real need for constant communication to be a part of an association such as this remote state would have.

Distances in the Pacific dwarf those in the Caribbean and between the islands and suitable relay towers there. As for cables, those connecting the Caribbean to Central and South America, as well as to Europe via the Madeira Islands, are extensive. There are cables connecting points on Florida's east coast as well. Based on the competition between the SAC and the ANZC, I'd say the development in the SAC would be greater there than it is in our time line. Canon has them a leader in internet innovation, in fact. Shipping between the ECF, Mexico and the SAC would be greater than among the ANZC associated states as well. With all these connections, then, it would be the USAR that would lead the way in reconnecting with the NAU and the USA. With good relations with Colombia, shipping through the canal to the west coast would be a simple matter (6000 miles or so with plenty of ports of call in between). Unless we want to relegate the ECF to third world status, I would say that the USAR is in great shape to join with its mainland compatriots if the two governments agree. As Arstar has rendered the USA article thus far that has not happened just yet. I will have to rewrite the paragraphs to reflect this for I don't want to push it on any one anyway. --SouthWriter (talk) 20:31, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that the Great Plains USA would be able to use any remaining satellites in orbit or even the new ones for that matter. While the GpUSA is rapidly expanding and becoming more active in trade, satellite use just seems too far off.

I agree with LG that statehood is almost out of the question for this point in time. Theres still a lot to be cleared up, such as the fact both states are in completely different economic unions and it would take one switching over to either the Buffalo or ECF Dollar. Lets say they used both, it might take the reintroduction of the gold standard to regulate the values of said currencies. Theres also the issue of membership in those reflective unions themselves and who would exit.

I definitely think now is the time to officially stress out what their relationship is. I was thinking somewhere along the line of an Associated State type relationship or something of sorts. For example I think they should issue the same passports/documentation, constitution (of course), federal laws, etc. but they retain different governments. What do you think South? Arstar talk 21:29, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

...South, you're not entirely getting my point about the islands, and similar areas of the USA. While they technically hold citizenship, hold the same passports and can go into the rest of the USA freely, they don't have the same rights. Federally, they can do almost nothing. Nor do they have a say that actually means anything at that level. Has pretty well always been the case. Basically, the attachment that exists with actual states doesn't exist there in the same way.

The 1500 mile maximum range I gave was a rough guess - I know where the northern end of the line was, all I know exactly about the southern end is that it was in Kansas. So, anywhere from ~1150 to 1500 miles. And, remember, that it's touch and go at best - you need very ideal conditions for that.

They thing you missed, however, was that it was only possible through the use of repeater towers - which, at best, are needed every two or three hundred miles. And that number gets worse in mountainous country.

The maintenance on these suckers needs to be done pretty regularly. Few years without it, and they become rather difficult to use.

With things atl? There is going to be massive gaps in that network. The path to get signals to the new USA would be far, far, far more complex than that.

Shortwave radio, in truth, suffers from many of the same faults. Not quite as reliant on towers, but still needs them irregardless. The ionosphere is a little more touchy than it looks. And, really, shortwave radio is far more limited than any other kind of radio - it's spotty at the best of times, and limited in when it can be used effectively.

Most of these satellites launched in the last few years atl would only be in range of these areas for very short windows. Not that the new USA is likely to have much ability in that regard, anyways.

As has been gone over before, mostly with Fx, the majority of those cables were rendered useless within a few years of DD. No one around to maintain them. Parts of the Pacific and Caribbean are about the only areas where they'd have been left intact to some degree - and easily among the first to get new ones put in or old ones fixed. The ones you're referring to off Florida, and between that region and Europe, aren't really going to exist by this point.

Yes, the SAC may be a leader in that field atl - insomuch as that means a lot - but the atl internet really has nothing to do with contact between the two.

The idea that the USAR would be a "leader" in contact with the new USA, is, quite honestly, something that doesn't make any sense at all. Moreover, the USAR is also not on good terms with the SAC, especially those members in charge of the Canal.

Really, even the idea of them being partially under the same government makes little sense at this point. Recognize each others passports with little to no argument? Sure. Using each others diplomatic offices in other countries if they themselves have no one stationed there? Sure. Trying to start to rectify the differences in their laws, etc.? Again, sure.

If it helps, there is a lot of precedent for the first two questions, there.

But other things? Doesn't make any sense right now. Their international memberships, differing laws, the distance, different currencies, and no doubt international goals as well, are all different.

There is just no way that anything more than that could possibly be done right now. It'd be ceding their autonomy to others for nothing.

Lordganon (talk) 05:43, August 30, 2012 (UTC)

Hurricanes

I just realized that there are several major hurricanes that have pretty much destroyed the Virgin Islands between 1989 and 2012. Hurricane Hugo in particular, striking in '89 caused billions in damage, as well as Marilyn in 95, which destroyed around 80 percent of the houses on Saint Thomas.

I'm thinking that we can write this in as a turning point, and the aftermath of the 1995 storms marking the rebuilding of a "new" Virgin Islands created by the Atlantic Remnant. What do you guys think? Arstar talk 01:50, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

If by "new" you mean "ramshackle housing" then yes! Lordganon (talk) 02:35, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the housing is ramshackle right now. If there was actually a portion of the US government overseeing the construction of something sturdy it wouldn't be so ramshackle, which would likely be the case with the Remnant. Arstar talk 04:06, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

...Way to miss the point entirely.

So a tiny remnant of a formerly massive nation is more capable than the massive nation itself? It is not.

Housing is pretty good here, otl. Atl? Not even remotely.

Lordganon (talk) 07:15, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

The Remnant was and is associated with the ECF, and in 1989 would have been highly regimented by its military leadership. Hugo and Marilyn would have done their damage, but the ECF would have also have been affected. Though contact with the ANZC was probably spotty even in 1995, the SAC is close enough to render aid, as is Mexico. "Ramshackle" may very well be a good way to describe Haiti, but most other island nations would have structures and infastructure in place to survive hurricanes. As the article is written, we will have to assume at least adequate facilities exist in this time line as in our own. If we want to rethink the article, then let's do it. However, that would go for the whole ECF as well. SouthWriter (talk) 01:36, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

And none of those are near as capable the otl government at repairing the damage. Nor is the general maintenance going to be as good as in otl.

The new buildings will not be like the new ones otl. "Ramshackle" is a pretty good term, imo.

Lordganon (talk) 01:46, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Ganon, you have a far more confidence in the US government when it comes to construction projects than I do! Seriously, though, all construction projects done in rebuilding after hurricanes are carried on by civilians -- contractors skilled in doing what bureaucrats have no idea about. In the case of the Caribbean and South America, neither depends on our government in our time line, so why would they in this one?

BTW, here is the definition of ramshackle:

1: appearing ready to collapse : rickety

2: carelessly or loosely constructed

I have been to South America (Peru), and I have seen construction there in action. There are shanty towns, for sure, but the cities are just as modern as are ours in North America. However, St. Croix, the southernmost island of the USAR, would have been practically destroyed in 1989. The destruction by Marilyn was not as severe to St. Thomas, with where "most buildings sustained some damage" and "80% of the homes and businesses were damaged or destroyed." Though this was a "disaster zone" and did receive federal funding, it would not necessarily be rebuilt by the government. I'm game to writing into the history as to how the USAR and the ECF handled this, though. SouthWriter (talk) 02:38, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

The way I viewed it is that the Remnant government could use the disaster to help construct an actual capital city out of the ruins. I am not saying the buildings will be paved with gold and diamonds, but with a large, permanent concentration of American military, diplomats "mainlanders" would warrant a more "American" version of the city.

I was thinking that the "new" Charlotee Amalie would be constructed in the layout as Washington D.C. out of nostalgia but obviously with different materials. It kind of enhances the attitude of the Remnant that America still lives on in their tiny slice of it. Arstar talk 03:06, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware of what the word means. And that is exactly why it fits so well here.

Actually, I likely have far less confidence than you do in the abilities of the US government - but I have far, far, less confidence in the governments of points south of that than in them.

Much of the rebuilding is, however, paid for by the government, and insurance policies. Not a dime of which would exist atl. The rebuilding would not have been possible without these funds - and as such, they did the rebuilding.

Add to that that items such as seawalls and dikes are not civilian structures and need to be fixed as well.

The Caribbean and South America are dependent on the rest of the world for some things. Things ranging from food to funds to construction materials would all be limited, especially compared to otl.

Much of Peru is, in fact, very poor. And the population of the "shantytowns" is far higher than the "modern" areas you refer to. Neither are the cities in much of Latin America "just as modern." Most people, and indeed, most areas of these cities, barely get by.

Overall, the rebuilding would have to be done "on the cheap" - leading to rather "ramshackle" buildings.

Arstar, there would be no funds or materials for such a thing. Nor would there be the space for anything like that.

Lordganon (talk) 03:27, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

LG, we are not dealing with Haiti where people throw two hawstacks together after an earthquake and call it a house.

Stone and other materials are directly available on the Islands, especially wood on Vieques. Given the large US military presence on the island, they would surely see to the construction of rather sturdy buildings. I have seen at least a dozen US Embassies, military training facilities, and other government institutions in Latin America and all of them are vastly superior compared to surrounding "native" buildings. The US Army has a rather large amount of engineers and even if the materials were scarce they would apply them the best way they could. Thus the seawalls and dikes could be fixed by them.

I don't know how Peru was brought up but I think the "modern cities" South is referring to the high-end areas of some of the larger cities. Other than that Peru is largely dominated by shitty housing where indoor plumbing is nonexistant. And LG there are some very modern cities in South America. I have to admit that Medellin, Colombia is nicer than many American cities in terms of architecture, ignoring the fact the entire city is one big money laundering scheme, lol.

I have to disagree with you LG that South America and the Caribbean are dependent on "Western" materials. In fact in some cases it is the other way around. South/Latin America's economy is largely detached from the West in certain regards, one of those being construction. Much of the food and wood used in the US actually comes from various countries south of the US. And if the USAR is supposed to be one of the richer countries in the Caribbean I don't see how it would have such a hard time acquiring simple construction materials.

Long story short: The Army is pretty damn disciplined and even with lack of funding they wouldn't build "ramshackle" buildings. Arstar talk 04:12, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

I did not once say or make any such comparison to Haiti.

What on earth is up with you lately, Arstar? Sheesh.

Those embassies are built with imported materials, staff, plans, and money. About the only thing "local" is usually some construction workers. Not "native-built."

No, Arstar, you assume that because they have a large number of engineers, they are here. This is not a place where that would be at all true. At most, you're going to see a couple hundred - and even that total is far too high. There are no detachments in the area, at all.

Saying that you "don't know how Peru came up" and then referring to exactly how makes no sense. And that's more or less exactly what I just said.

Actually, they are dependent on the world for some things. Just like every spot on earth, there is some things they are not produced domestically. Simple fact.

Some construction materials have to come from elsewhere. Always is the case - and you forget entirely that this is not the otl present, but atl - things haven't changed all that much since 1983. So the matter is even more prevalent.

Only in parts of the year does "most" of the food and wood consumed in the US come from points south. And it's not "most," at all, either, for that matter. Not by a long shot.

Nor are they one of the "richer" countries. Tourism-dependent economy, remember? Nor is it just "simple construction materials."

Kinda hard for a group who's not in the area to build anything. It's up to the civilians. Ramshackle, at best.

Lordganon (talk) 05:30, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

It was I who made a comparison with Haiti, guys. And I have walked among the shantytowns -- and worse -- outside of Trujillo, Peru. I have been inside of homes built between the walls of better "middle class" homes. From what I could tell, they indeed did not have "indoor plumbing." However, the place did not smell of refuse, so I may have been mistaken. Even in the suburbs where I visited many homes, though, the construction was by no means "ramshackle." The houses are made as materials become available, though, so some indeed look like they are thrown together at times. Most of the time, though, this is only temporary. Sooner than later the rebar is inclosed with sundried brick (made locally) or with adobe. Granted, this material might not survive a hurricane (if one ever came along), but it does survive minor earthquakes rather well.

In the US Virgin Islands the populace is better connected, I would think, and in this time line the military had already set up a system to keep order. After the destruction of St. Croix in 1989, I am pretty sure that relocation and rebuilding would both come into play. By 1995 the connections with the ECF and Mexico, and to an extent the SAC, would have assured that St. Thomas' fate would not have been left to chance. I have to disagree with the contention that "things have not changed that much since 1983." These are Americans in radio contact with old allies in the Caribbean, South America and Mexico, not to mention the expatriot government in Australia. They would not be languishing in shanty towns in the wake of hurricanes for long.

Arstar, I do not think that the USAR would venture to rebuild after the pattern of DC. The government exists to serve the Americans living in the islands, not to build monuments to itself. Let us not complicate things with fantastic plans like those apparently accomplished in Superior and Lincoln. The materials, for one thing, would not be available (and I doubt if they would be even in Superior!). The buildings would be rebuilt stronger and perhaps reduced in number and resituated to prevent surges from destroying them. We need to look at this realistically.

In the present time of TTL, it is reasonable to believe that a vibrant trade is with southern mainland nations of North America have been established. Connections in Colombia and Venezuela, as well as with Mexico would be fairly regular and secure. The whole ECF would be stable and connected as well. Given the distance, I suppose, the ECF would only have sporadic connection with the ANZC, but New Britain is much closer, as is Bermuda (which obviously has connections by now with the Celtic Union and New Britain.

SouthWriter (talk) 00:54, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

Can tell you right now that anything mud-brick wouldn't survive a hurricane well. Adobe would be a touch better, but..... they are still glorified mud-bricks.

What you're describing, South, meets the definition of the word "ramshackle" very nicely.

Yes, they would have indoor plumbing in only rare cases in those areas. It'd end up dumped in the proper areas, so the smell wouldn't be noticeable.

With that level of time after the destruction, and the turmoil still going on in these other places, aid isn't going to be that quick in coming. They've got their own problems.

Technology, among other things, hasn't changed much since 1983. A lot has stayed the same, remember.

Otl, there's not really going to be shantytowns in the islands. Atl? Probably.

Superior has built a house for the president, and a copy - though not the same size, obviously - of the Capitol building. As for the materials, it won't be cheap, easy, fast, or the same materials as the one in DC, but there's a lot of quarries and trees in the area to work with.

The new buildings really won't be as good in the Islands as whatever was there before. Resources just won't be there.

The ECF, however, doesn't have much resources of its own. And the tourism industry would only now be getting good again. Bermuda, same idea.

New Britain doesn't have much, either.

Lordganon (talk) 07:13, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

The area where I visited (the sprawling city of Trujillo) gets maybe an inch of rain on a "good year" -- it is coastal desert. The bricks are sturdy for the conditions, but they do have signs requesting no urinating on the walls! Adobe and brick buildings are by no means "appearing ready to collapse," and by their very nature -- being built without credit -- they are not "carelessly or loosely constructed" (as the rebar indicates). As I think of it, there is probably more concrete used than brick, so these would stand well unless a major earthquake hits. And then, with the rebar, most concrete buildings would hold together. These buildings are not ramshackle. There are slums outside of town that make one sick. You would be surprised, though, at the number of well built modern homes are in the city. I stayed both in hotels and private homes while there.

Again, by the time of the 1989 hurricane, connections with South America and Mexico would have assured at least timely response, if not help in rebuilding. I readily admit that St. Croix would be a long time in rebuilding. St. Thomas, on the other hand, would rebound nicely in 1995. The tourism business would obviously have taken back seat to survival on local produce and crude oil processing which it would continue for its clients in South America. It would not be the greatest situation, but I think that the circumstances would have lead to a measure of success. --SouthWriter (talk) 21:49, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

There's a good reason why those mud-bricks don't survive long unless it's a dry area. It's why they're only used in those regions. Those signs are a pretty good indicator of why, lol.

The very nature of mud-brick buildings means that they fit the definition of the term "ramshackle" very nicely. And that's by the definition you gave.

Concrete, by nature, is far more expensive than those bricks. And some of the damage hurricanes have done to that material is rather striking. Likely wouldn't have rebar in them, either, for that matter.

In 1989, Mexico was building a new capital city, repairing Mexico City, still dealing with the after-effects of the strikes in its northern territories and all the refugees from both north and south, and had just started to fight a losing war with rebels in Yucatan and Chiapas. Won't be much of anything from there.

And at that point in time, the members of the future SAC were dealing with massive political turmoil, large amounts of rebels, large secessionist movements, holding down restive areas, economic collapse, disputes among each other - which devolved into actual fighting in at least one case, though not a war - and a major hit to needed imports. None of them were in a situation where they could have done anything, either.

1995 sees most of these troubles either gone, or handled - but that means how many years with slums, already? And picture the result of that second hurricane on those areas, and the old damage besides that. Two destroyed islands sounds about right - not to mention the rest of the VI.

Lordganon (talk) 04:54, August 30, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, back to the beginning. Arstar created the USAR and I followed through giving it what seemed to be some viability. It passed the scrutiny of the canonization process, so it was good to go until now we are looking at it being devestated very early into its existence by Hugo. Assuming that the new government survived the crisis, the primacy of the USVI within the ECF would assure the growth indicated in the article as written. I do not know if St. Croix would be returned to its former condition even after 20 years or so, but it certainly would be inhabited by Americans of the USAR.

The discussion about Peruvian housing need go no further. Sometimes Ganon and I just do not read definitions the same. lol. Suffice it to say that sandstone brick would not be used in the islands anyway. Clay-based modern brick, though, do not disintegrate when accosted by even high-pressure steam! The destruction caused by a hurricane might produce a pile of bricks which would be cleaned of mortar and reused. Concrete provides more security in a hurricane if it is moulded rather than laid in blocks. It is these homes that would have more likely survived.

Ganon makes a good point about the conditions in 1989 in both Mexico and South America, though I think that the government of Mexico more than likely could have provided some sort of help even in the midst of its own problems. I might be wrong, but the Cruz Roja Mexicana (Mexican Red Cross) would certainly have helped in some way.

The looting on the island would have been about the same and governor Fitzgerald would have sent in troops even more readily than George H.W. Bush did in OTL. The funds were not available for government assistance, but I think the emergency would have been enough to institute the draft to assist in restoration of buildings for those who wished to stay. Many of the residents would have just been relocated to St. Thomas or any of the ECF member states. Perhaps measures there would have been different in TTL due to this island being the largest of the USAR. I can see resettlement there by the mid 00's.

Having seen the devastation of its largest island, I believe the USAR government would have instituted some sort of preparedness measures that would have mitigated some of the destruction in 1995. The workforce would have been moved back to agriculture even before the July 4th raising of the flag in 1989. The tourist industry would be long in returning. This in and of itself would have changes many things. With the service jobs disappearing and self-sufficiency a new priority, farming of the tropical fruits and the oil refining plants would become the primary industries. This would only be re-enforced after Hugo.

Anyway, those are a few of my ideas. SouthWriter (talk) 18:53, August 30, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they would have evaced a whole island due to a hurricane. They would likely set up tent cities or something and then rebuilding would begin several years later. Depopulating an island like that is just an invite to pirates and whatnot. Arstar talk 01:36, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

Remember, however, that bricks of either of those types, South, would largely have to be imported. I think just about every episode of "House Hunters" I've ever seen set in the islands has talked about that. I imagine, to some degree, that the same applies to mortar. That's assuming, as well, that such materials had been used in the buildings on the islands in the first place.

The Red Cross would likely have sent food and blankets - but past that, anything else would not be very rapid.

Fitzgerald, however, would likely have had less troops at his disposal. Past that, I doubt many people would leave. While the other island was not destroyed in 1989, it still would have been damaged, after all. They'll just live in worse housing, as Arstar said.

No doubt they would have instituted some sort of program - however, the damage from the last hurricane would still be present to some degree. The effects would be worse than in otl.

Lordganon (talk) 08:26, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

Arstar, what on earth? Way to ignore everything posted on this talk page.

Not only is there stone and concrete shortages, but as already noted, they would not have engineers like you think.

Lordganon (talk) 04:26, September 23, 2012 (UTC)

Cuban Military and GTMO

I've seen it mentioned that Cuba had a military "the size of the Tennessee National Guard" as a reason for there to be no conflict over GTMO. That gives a false impression of the forces involved. The Cuban Military is reported to have had at least 100,000 personnel in the early 1980s. The Joint Task Force in charge of GTMO has about 2,200 personnel and 9,000 non-combatants in it.

The Eastern Army of the Cuban Military had 2 Corps and at least 10 Divisions assigned to it. Whether or not this changes anything, I wouldn't know for sure, and would have to look more deeply into it. I just thought it was worth what I thought was a misconception in the discussion. Regentage (talk) 21:37, December 19, 2013 (UTC)

Good point, Reg. I personally lobbied for, and finally wrote in, the abandonment of GTMO - which was not a prison for terrorists at the time. This is found int the text concerning the aftermath of the bombing of Santiago.  Thank you for your input.  SouthWriter (talk) 22:11, December 19, 2013 (UTC).

Matters less than you'd think, Reg - Cuba kept its troops away from the base, and most of that eastern command was located at least 50 miles from the base. Far as I can find, they kept an army brigade, and an artillery regiment, within a reasonable distance of the base, but that's it.

Those military units - the corps, divisions, etc - were also somewhat understrength, and had a lot of it as reserves. Not high-quality soldiers.

Eventually, other units would show up and they could take the base, but with what is on hand, they couldn't. The eventual movement of sufficient numbers is what, as South noted, forced the abandonment.

Lordganon (talk) 10:18, December 20, 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, excellent. I should have read a bit closer, it seems. Good show, lads. Regentage (talk) 19:33, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

Adoption

Is anyone still editing this page? If not, and if nobody has any objections, I'd like to adopt it. GryffindorKrypton (talk) 02:59, April 1, 2020 (UTC)GryffindorKrypton 


Since there don't seem to be any objections to my request, I will adopt the page. For now, I'm going to focus on adding more details about the local politics and culture. I also saw a Talk page somewhere on the Wiki (I have to remember for which article) that discussed the possibility of Jimmy Carter, now retired from his presidency in Neonotia, serving as sort of an envoy between the USAR and the mainland, with the likelihood of facilitating closer times with the mainland American community. I'll have to double-check what the suggestion was exactly, but it sounded interesting. In the meantime, I also want to explore some of the local stuff here, like who the current leadership might be in Charlotte Amalie. GryffindorKrypton (talk) 21:30, April 12, 2020 (UTC)GryffindorKrypton

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