Alternative History
Register
Advertisement

Proposition for the Condition of Asia[]

Map of Proposed Asia

East Asia

China has reentered the Warlord era, though it has centralized into several major states since its fall in 1983. Republic of China, the only democratically elected government among the Chinese states, is largely recognized as the PRC's successor. East Turkestan, Tibet, and the Socialist Republic of Maio are fighting for independence, while Manchuria is fighting with the Soviet Socialist Republic of Siberia for control of Manchuria. Mongolia has also moved in a taken parts of Inner Mongolia. A remnant of the South Korean government still exists on the island of Jeju-do, while the Ryuku Islands follow a path of independence as a result from being cut-off from Japan.

Middle East

Probably the most confusing situation. Israel somewhat expanded into the Sinai, but largely remained in its current territory. Iraq and Iran largely fell apart, Iran from the loss of central cities to Soviet Nuclear weapons, Iraq to the loss of the international oil market. Kurdistan, Assyria, the Socialist Republic of Iraq, and the Islamic Republic of Iraq would be formed in the aftermath. Syria would maintain itself, moving into Lebanon, the Greek Christians taking the remnant and becoming members of the Greek Confederation. The Caliphate of Mecca would be formed along the Red Sea coast, while Palestinian refugees would from the states of Palestine on the East Bank of the Jordan, which would continue to fund terrorism in Israel proper. The League of Nations would also intervene in the area, occupying the location of the former Saudi oil refineries, in order to build up reserves. Baluchistan also has declared independence, and is waging an insurgency campaign against Pakistan.
Iran defeated by soviet weapons? why not israeli?Tristanbreiker 17:14, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

Since the section on the Middle East is gone, I hope the Asia page is the correct place to post my thoughts. I would like to put forward the argument about the continued existence of both Israel and Jordan post Doomsday. I believe it is logical to assume certain Middle East nations would be targets on DDay. In the case of these nations, their relationships with the West would be a factor. As I stated earlier, the USSR attack would be a knee-jerk reaction to what would have been viewed as a sneak attack by the US. To that end the purpose of the attacks would be to disable or wound the ability of certain countries that could help the US. Israel has had a close military relationship with the US and was in fact given the status of a non-NATO ally in the late 1980s. Jordan on the other hand was pro-British and American. Its military had received western training and much of its hardware was also from the West.

In this scenario both nations would be affected at different levels, most likely Israel more. This said there are a number of factors to be considered in Israel’s favor. It is a battle hardened nation shaped by the experiences it has undergone with war and terrorism since independence. As a result, it possessed in 1983 one of the strongest militaries in the region and a highly militarized population. As an offshoot, they had an excellent civil defense system nationwide, including underground bomb shelters mandated by law, and a population trained to respond accordingly and quickly. Lastly, the Israelis are a tough and resolute people shaped by the hardships they’ve endured and have the mindset to survive whatever came their way. They would be in a good condition to destroy at least some incoming warheads (although not many) and safely shelter much of the population during the attacks. I think the attacks would be limited to key ports, airfields, and nuclear facilities. Afterwards, the survival factor would come in to play. Jordan’s situation would be far different since their military was smaller and did not possess nuclear arms. Also, they only had one major port to speak off. I think any attacks against them would target the capital and several key military installations, enough to hurt them badly, especially due to the concentration of their population, but not destroy the country. They would survive; perhaps getting assistance from neighboring nations, but over time could get back on their feet. The King would also be a unifying figure for survival. As he was in Asia, I would see him getting home and rallying the people. With Syria gone, an enemy to both nations, I think this would help as well.

A last question in all of this is Israel’s nuclear arsenal. I have studied their basic policy towards their use and can not see any logical factor in their being used on DDay or just after. Although Israel has stated they will use them if attacked, especially by nukes, this seems a non-factor since the USSR was the nation who attacked them and in essence had already been wiped out. Even if they wanted to, Israel’s ability to launch was limited to short range missiles and warplanes. With Syria wiped out and Egypt and Jordan heavily damaged by the Soviets because of their military relationship with the West, I can not see any logical threat against Israel which would compel them to attack. Everybody is going to be more concerned about survival and in the long run common suffering might draw some countries together as we have seen elsewhere in DDay. However, this being said I believe further down the line this could become a real possibility in regards to the Assyrians (i.e. Iraq). To this end, I have created proposals for both Israel and Jordan, which are an outgrowth of the articles I am already working on. Since the Middle East is something of a blank slate, my goal is to interconnect my articles and put forward a history of the area to interconnect with everything else. I will be posting my long terms thoughts for the region on the main discussion page. As always, I am interested in feedback from you on what I am doing. Thanks and my apologies for the lengthy discourse.--Fxgentleman 22:54, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

Caucasus

There really is no explanation needed here. Most ethnic groups were able to earn their independence following the collapse of the central authority from Moscow. The only problem however was that constant warfare began throughout the region as a result. The only area of difficulty is determining the ethnic layout following the nuclear destruction of cities within the region.

Central Asia

Again, same problem. Though this is largely the ethnic layout, there is difficulty to determine the effects of the nuclear war upon distribution of the various groups. On a side-note, Tajikistan is split in two by Hazara, while the remainder of land in Afghanistan has since been occupied by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Other Areas of Note

- Iran - Was not sure what the aftermath government would look like with the loss of central authority, though it could be assumed the situation would devolve into something like China.

- Burma - Considering how many independence movements there are, there could be as many as 100 different countries making up the area.

- Turkey - Was not sure how large Turkey would be, due to the loss of many major cities. Likely would include Anatolia, but just wasn't able to draw a decent, in my mind, realistic border.

- Central China - Again, not sure what would be there. Probably two additional warlord states, but I leave that up to you guys.

- Indochina - Situation could very much become like that of China, especially if Hanoi and Saigon are hit by nuclear weapons. Vietnamese troops were stationed in both Laos and Cambodia, so if the situation did devolve, they would cease to exist as independent states.

Tell me what you think. Lahbas 21:46, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

All right to respond to some of your ideas.

  • East Asia. I like what you have going here a lot. Only thing is that Mongolia would be part of Siberia, though Outer Mongolia might now be part of it.
  • Middle East. Not bad ideas, but I don’t know if I agree with the idea of it being nuked (see what I rote in the M.E section below).
  • Caucasus. I think that is right on the money, nothing to argue with.
  • Central Asia. Can you stay away from here for a little while? I have recently been thinking about re doing the Siberia article to include some of these areas. Other wise I have no problems.
  • Indochina. Even in the most pessimistic situation I can’t see the countries here being nuked by anyone, though fallout and refugees from China however would pose a serious problem. Perhaps South Vietnam becomes independent again because of this.--ShutUpNavi 23:45, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

The Cambodians could rebuild and resettle the old Khemer capitol of Angkor. --Yankovic270 01:35, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

We've nixed "rebuilding the ruins" in other areas before, since there's no real reason for it to happen - other than tickling the fancies of people who enjoy thinking about history ;-). In general I like your scheme, since it gives us a place from which we can work. The problem, of course, with creating dozns of countries is that it could potentially limit somebody else with a great idea. Maybe create an Asia page based on your ideas, and label it as tentative until people want to get involved. Generally I think your map fits the TL - it avoids illogical superpowers, but doesn't pretend that the entire continent is empty. Benkarnell 21:58, October 9, 2009 (UTC)
So would anyone object to putting the map and a version of Lahbas' text onto a page on Asia? Benkarnell 23:44, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
I have no objections to a seperate page for discussion, seeing as it in itself will likely become a major focal point once interest in it rises. Also, I do not wish to push against creativity of other editors. I merely based the map of of ethnic groups uniting into commong nations, while also trying to remain within what is already considered canaon, in the case of Assyria and Kurdistan. A major point I like to make as to the absence of Iran from my map. Though I have not found any evidence of the use of nuclear weapons against the Iranians, I would not hold it against the Soviets to use them, considering the tactics and condition of the Islamic Republic even in the early years of the Iran-Iraq War. Even if they refuse to drop a nuclear weapon, or weapons, upon key sites within the area, I find it likely that they would use convential bombing and tactical nuclear weapons against the Iranians in the time before the assault that will never come. As a result, both Iran and Iraq collapse fromm internal strife. A proposition currently, but I doubt that the current government would be able to maintain power for long even if it did manage to survive. Lahbas 05:34, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

China[]

Has anyone actually figured out what happened to China on Doomsday? My personal inclination, based on how the Soviet leadership viewed China at this point, was that every major military and industrial center in China got hit in a surprise strike by the Soviets, to prevent them from eating Siberia and the Far East alive after the war with the US ended, which would have been a realistic possibility after a major nuclear exchange.--Loughery111 23:14, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

There has been a little work on the edges - Tibet, Uyghuristan, Manchuria, Taiwan. The only survivor state from the interior that we know about is the infamous Dragon State. Basically we don't have a "grand master plan" for China yet. Benkarnell 23:33, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
I'd be willing to try that. It might require the resurrection of another RoC in the Yellow River Delta, centered around the old capitalist stronghold of Shanghai, with all the attendant political tension with the present RoC and a unification movement. I like the idea of having a North-South China split with the RoC and Taiwan in the south backed by Japan and ANZC, and some variation on the PRC holding down the north, backed by the Soviets. Thoughts?--Loughery111 23:42, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
The USSR claims to be the legitimate successor to the PRC, so any group claiming to be the "real" PRC is more likely to be a rival than a client to the Siberians. That would be interesting, too, if you ask me. But there couldn't be anything too big, anyway - China ought to be every bit as devastated as the USA. Where would the unification movements be based?
Lately I've been thinking that something ought to be on Hainan, whether it's Communist, anti-Communist, or whatever. Maybe that's where the RoC is based?
Make sure you read the Taiwan page. I don't remember all of what's in there, but I don't think it's backed by ANZ. Benkarnell 23:47, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
I think that, even if Shanghai gets hit on Doomsday, that would be the best place for an RoC to form later on, between the long-standing capitalist tradition and the foreign contact and cosmopolitan nature of the area. It makes sense for this area, Taiwan, and Hong Kong to band together and eventually secure the south. Something will inevitably arise under Soviet support and take most of the North, though I wouldn't be surprised to find Korea expanding beyond the Yalu at some point.--Loughery111 00:01, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Sort-of adoption[]

May I expand this to show a rough overview of Asia after Doomsday? Bryce3 (talk) 21:29, March 6, 2016 (UTC)

And with 2 hours to go, i'm assuming no-one has any objections - adopted for expansion unless anyone has objections before then :D  Bryce3 (talk) 19:04, March 13, 2016 (UTC)

Advertisement