Talk:Zambia (1983: Doomsday)

Semi-canon material

There is no canon material about Zambia per se, but two proposals that pre-date this article are North Zimbabwe and South Zimbabwe that mention Zambia. I suggest talking with the author(s) of those articles as you flesh out this one. Mitro 22:04, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

The line about Katanga needs to be removed.

I find it very unlikely, imo, that the dictatorial government would stand any chance at staying in power. Considering the number of coup attempts otl, you will see one topple the guy in charge sooner rather than later, post DD. 1991, at the latest.

That being said, this one will have a very good chance at staying intact, as a nation - there's no movements of any kind for it a split.

Lordganon 09:26, January 20, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I have to disagree with the comment about it 'staying together'. The center, the capital, might survive, but surely it would break away at the fringes? It would be like the Galactic Empire in The Foundation, slowly dying over many years. Only here it doesn't just die out utterly.

A dictatorial govt would stay in power if it spent loads on the army, getting it large enough to fight off a popular rebellion. Of course, coup attempts would occur with weak rulers, and it would never advance, as the only way for a strong ruler to stay strong is to take out strong generals.

I hate to crib shamelessly from said novel, but it applies so much to post doomsday nations that weren't nuked, especially in Africa. GunsnadGlory 20:00, January 20, 2012 (UTC)

Zambia is a nation with no ethnic troubles, regional movements, or even any major political disputes. This is a nation that is one of the best candidates in Africa to remain intact, and to even expand somewhat.

Note that I did not say that the dictator, after being overthrown, would be replaced by democracy (what is it you have against that, btw? Just seems like you have something against democracy, Guns) Odds are it would be replaced by a dictator. As I said, by 1991 at the latest.

Army size matters not at all.

That novel really isn't applicable. That's like saying that On the Beach is relevant.

Lordganon 02:56, January 21, 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing against democracy. I just think that it only works well in well developed nations. America under the Articles of Confederacy was democratic, and the govt could do nothing, individual states had all the power. You would say the US are, not the US is. Look at modern democracies. India, for example, is rife with corruption, because it has money and a weak system. In crises, you don't have time to hold a referendum, you act fast, or you're up shit creek. Post-Doomsday, you face hundreds of crises a month. No time for a congress. Half these states are about as democratic as Isiro. They have a Parliament which is essentially the upper class. I hate to infringe on No Cross, No Crown... but honestly? Short term... it's useless.

Okay, but you were kinda unclear about what you meant. It did sound (maybe just to me) like you were saying that the dictatorship would fall to a popular rebellion... NOT happening if the army is large...

On the beach isn't relevant because it deals with TOTALLY different scenarios. This is psychological.

GunsnadGlory 00:31, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

That opinion is unfounded, Guns. Development has nothing to do with democracy. Have a look at this and this.

That's not an accurate picture of the Articles.

India is not weak in its government. Slightly corrupt, maybe - but not very much so. Got nothing to do with a "weak government" or money.

Nor is that an accurate picture of democracy, at all. Governments almost never hold referendums - for the same reason you describe. Why in hell would they hold one when things are collapsing around them? They would not.

Most states post-DD are democratic. As are most countries otl. Developing, Developed.... most are.

A popular rebellion is one of two likely causes. You are far overestimating the size of army a nation could ever support.

...you missed my point. Your comparison to that book is as worthless as one to "On the Beach" would be.

Lordganon 11:08, January 22, 2012 (UTC)