"war between the states today" Topic

link

I think partial re-unification along lines the author suggests is as likely a scenario as any. And I think he is correct that a Marine from Texas stationed on the west coast would be more likely to try to get back home than to join the Army of California.

One aspect to this the author does NOT address is state identification/loyalty. While one Texas author (SEMI-TOUGH) joked that a Texan "is just a Mexican on his way to Oklahoma" we Texans (and I've lived in Tennessee more than half my life and do feel some loyalty to it) know it IS a joke. I suspect -- but have no real evidence -- that some states' populations are relatively more, and some relatively less, loyal to their own state (in the way that, say, Lee considered himself a Virginian first). Americans are very mobile and most of us have lived in many states. And regional differences are muted in comparison to 50 years ago.

But there's a LOT of Texans who are fierce about it. Is that AS true in all 49 other cases?

Also, what about internal conflicts. New York is formidable PROVIDED upstate is tight with NYC. But would it be? Is coastal California compatible with the inland agricultural areas? Do all the illegal aliens go back to their own countries? The author doesn't consider these things much or at all, but they would be pretty crucial.

Interesting speculation, though, and I trust/hope it will never come to pass.

Until yesterday my wife and all of her colleagues suffered through working with a neurotic and self-absorbed woman who made everybody miserable and threatened to quit every now and then. Yesterday, the boss finally called her bluff and fired her, to the great celebration of the whole workplace. There was a line out the boss' door for hours thereafter, of people coming to thank her. The threat of breaking up the unity of the workplace, the chaos and disruption which this woman had held out as the penalty for not pleasing her, proved illusory.

That said…

In your scenario? Of course New Jersey would win! We're faster, more devious, we fight dirty, and everybody underestimates us. Those who could not be bribed, would be killed in their sleep. Vinnie the mean-ass Jerseyan would ambush most of the Texans while they were still bragging about how great it is to be a Texan. Using ethnic camouflage, he'd ambush their reinforcements at the Home Depot, cleverly disguised as a minimum wage migrant worker. Then he'd sabotage their barbecues, not only burning down their bases and homes, but also collecting on the insurance payments for the "tragic and unfortunate accidental fires."

The other southern boys don't stand a chance. Vinnie can cause a fatal gas leak under your house, in less time than a southerner needs to complete a sentence. And he'll still have enough time to pick up his wife at the tanning salon, and thus have an alibi.

And of course we have a massive advantage in NBC warfare. If New Jersey were invaded, every house and apartment building would become a toxic minefield for the attackers. The civilians would only need to scoop a handful of dirt from their front yards, to hurl at the advancing southern troops, or perhaps a garden tomato. Sure, it would violate the Geneva Convention, but…

… in Jersey, everything's negotiable. Besides, I know a guy….

It does seem to take things in isolation. What, for example, would Canada do if the Great Lakes seaways were threatened?

And your governor is a man of great gravitas.

But it's not MY scenario . . . .

There is a reason the Pentagon is called the puzzle palace.
Every thing in the military is connected by a sophisticated communications network using voice and data and dependant on satellites.
The ability to give or receive orders would be degraded.
As would weapons guidance systems for over the horizon missile and artillery.
If equipment broke down it might not be able to be fixed as there would be no computer diagnostics capability.
No ammo once on hand stocks were depleted.No accuracy if shooting off what you have as the ballistic fire control systems would fail and the people who used Mk1 eyeball to shoot will have been gone for 30 years.
So unless the 2nd civil war is fought with baseball bats and switchblade knives its gonna get really old very quickly.

link

Barone lays out the extent to which states are controlled by only one party right now. Pretty stark divide.

But in most of the 50 states, American voters seem to have opted for something very much like one-party government.

Starting next month, Americans in 25 states will have Republican governors and Republicans in control of both houses of the state legislatures. They aren't all small states, either. They include about 53 percent of the nation's population.

At the same time, Americans in 15 states will have Democratic governors and Democrats in control of both houses of the state legislatures. They include about 37 percent of the nation's population.

That leaves only 10 percent in states in which neither party is in control.

The Republican edge is largely a result of the Republican trend in 2009 and 2010. Normally, you would expect the Democrats to recoup and shift the balance the next time they have a good off-year. Maybe they will in 2014.

But what's striking now is the wide margins in legislatures for one party or the other in state after state — most of them, in fact.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Republicans will have more than 60 percent of the members of both legislative houses in 17 states (Nebraska has a single nonpartisan legislature). And in nine more states, they'll have 60 percent of the members of one house plus a majority in the other and the governorship.

Democrats will have 60 percent plus of both houses in 11 states, and in two more they will have 60 percent in one house, a majority in the other plus the governorship.

Read more: The Marietta Daily Journal – States choose own path with one party governments

Off to teach American government; more later.

I was born, raised and lived my whole life in Massachusetts. I hate the place, the taxes, the weather, the politics, the courts and too many other things to name.

The only reason I've stayed here so long is they pay me a lot of money. As soon as I can (5 1/2 to 9 years) I'm leaving, so there is NO state loyalty with me.

The only problem I'd have with the forces of New York taking over New England is if they make me become a Yankee fan. Then it will be war.

I wouldn't matter much as so many of my friends and family are in Virginia, that I'd most likely head south anyway.

If you didn't see it, there is a link at the bottom of the page on how to take Cinderella's Castle at Disneyworld – it's pretty funny.

link

CraigH,

Thanks for the link. I don't think I'll be able to go the Magic Kingdom again without thinking of it.

I agree with the assessment on first approach. A direct assault up Main Street is inviting ambush from your flanks and Tommorrowland has to many wide open fields of fire. Waterway in Adventureland and Frontierland/Liberty Square limit your frontage.

Whoever wrote this is a veteran of Disney. I love the part:

"While in Fantasyland we will have the opportunity to take down the menace of all parents everywhere. The "It's a Small World" ride will be within our reach. Our secondary objective is to eliminate the ride with extreme prejudice."

Very funny.

I don't think there is any state loyalty in this country. People, for the most part, do not think of themselves as Pennsylvanians first and Americans second. A state is only a geographical location where they live and most people will complain about the government of their state for one reason or another.

The divide, if there is to be a civil war, will clearly be between rural populations and urban populations.

That is where the political divide is, that is where the divide is on issues like gun control and many other things.

If anything we will see a war where the areas outside the cities get frustrated with the control asserted over them by the cities or the cities are frustrated at rural intransigence.

Having lived in both NJ and Texas, I can say that Texans in general would win. I am not talking about your transplants now…

You see, a Texan would shoot you at long range. Vinnie is good at short range ;-) Texans are brought up with long range weapons. Assuming you do get within close range of a Texan, you will find out that they know how to handle themselves up close too ;-)

I am a transplant. Although not raised with weapons, I have found that I am a natural in all weapons. Regarding up close, well, martial arts are really popular here :-)

[b["You see, a Texan would shoot you at long range. Vinnie is good at short range ;-) "

Vinnie mainly operates at night.

And don't tell me that Tex has night-vision equipment, because Vinnie already bribed the Chinese shipping company to stop shipping it to Texas.

Pictors for the win!!!!!

If you look at the red/blue maps in detail that is the mental/political divide.

Rural areas while numerically inferior have a higher proportion of arms and of those trained in using them.

Question will be 'defeat in detail' vs 'dilution of forces.'

Too late for Vinnie, the popularity of night hunting for feral pigs has already built up stocks of night vision equipment (matter of fact Vinnie might want to consider visiting at night at all – mistaken identity?).

Well, in the unlikely event that that ever happened, I would leave Texas in a second and travel back to my ancestral land of Maine. I have never renounced citizenship and never want to be known as a Texan. We're not the biggest state, but we're stubborn as hell. And don't try to follow us into the woods.

Anyone who invades the South Side of Chi ain't comin' back.

Sorry but if any state wants to leave the Union, I say "good riddance! ".

Im perfectly happy in the Democratic Republic of C.A.!

Urban areas dont stand a chance versus the countryside.You cant eat bricks.

Urban areas dont stand a chance versus the countryside.You cant eat bricks.

You think food grows on trees? No, that's what supermarkets are for.

After a year of slaughter, the Canadian Army and the Mexican cartels move in, and without firing a shot, agree to split the carcass along a direct line from Charleston to Santa Barbara.

If things degrade to a another civil war, it will be rural vs city.

Rural will win in days. Cut the power, water, and food to a major city for 3 days. Get the militant country boys organized into guerrilla bands and start blowing bridges, hijacking trucks, and cutting com/power lines. If you can get the farmers on board its even easier.

You might have to hold out for a week till the city totally degrades into uncontrolled lawlessness. You will have to strike hard and fast. Start with smaller targets with limited military near by. Decimate a few cities and disappear into the woods for a while. Limit food production country wide and send someone to Washington to talk. They don't give in and you drop another random mid sized city. Better yet you use the time to plan an assault on the largest city you can find without a port. Ports would be to hard too control. They can still air drop supplies into the cities but that just create more problems because it will never be enough.

"Rural will win in days. "

There really isn't much true "rural" in a large developed country like the US anymore.

Rural people get their supplies from the same mass-retail and wholesale outlets as the cities do. Very few rural people grow their own food. Even if they did, a rural family probably couldn't feed itself for more than a few months without the various seed, fertilizers, fuels, and equipment that are routinely trucked-in to the big-box stores and outlets, from some urban warehouse or port.

Handfuls of people driving around in pickup trucks aren't exactly fuel-efficient, either. The gas would run out in a few days, and then they're stuck and isolated.

Without satellite connections, even basic communication would become difficult. The land lines tend to run through the urban areas, where control centers (not to mention power) are located.

This was really driven home by the recent hurricane in NY, NJ, and PA last month. The rural communities were hit hard; the small town people were cut off. Gas generators lasted about two days.

"agree to split the carcass along a direct line from Charleston to Santa Barbara."

Phew! I just made it into the Mexican territory by a hair. I was afraid I was going to be in the Canuck zone!

Who gets the nukes? Who are the boomers loyal to?

The point though Captain, in that scenario, is that the large urban centers will only last days. No gas, electricity, water, let alone the food situation.

If the rural areas last even weeks they have the advantage on supplies.

Hmm…I don't so much have state loyalty as regional loyalty. Frankly, war with California or New England would not be a moral problem for me; I've had enough experiences with idiot Yankees.

If you look at the red/blue divide on the county level, you start to see a better idea of the battle lines we would be dealing with in a general collapse (more likely than full-spectrum warfare, IMHO). Small cities (under 100,000, possibly a lower margin) would side with the rural areas, while larger ones would collapse into infighting before some kind of dictator cropped up.
Basically, cities not large enough to swing their county blue (Most out West and quite a few here in Dixie, for some reason reason I'm thinking of Fort Smith, AR and Rolla, MO as examples) tend to have a fairly conservative culture, and wouldn't face the same colossal rioting as, say, Saint Louis or Atlanta. They'd normalize more quickly. (Especially given Fort Smith's coal and petroleum resources)

Garrison,Canada um Ontatio wholely embraces unity with the republic of the Great Lakes Basin.

Since when is discussion on red state-blue state politics relevant to miniature wargaming?

There isn't even a fig leaf of wargaming material in the OP's comments.

If Bill wants to allow this political discussion there are some interesting econmic states that explain why red states would be foolish to start a second civil war.

You see, federal tax dollars flow from blue states to red states:

link

There's no way the business interests in those red states would want to shut off the flow of dollars from the blue states/makers.

Since when is discussion on red state-blue state politics relevant to miniature wargaming?

If you will re-read the topic, you will find this was not a political discussion, this was a "what if" campaign discussion. Perfectly relevant for TMP, and nobody was going political until you crossed the line.

If you all say you're sorry and promise not to be naughty again we'll probably agree to take the original colonies back. There is no way we'll agree to referee between Texas and California though so the rest of you are on your own.

I am, however willing to accept the post of King of Hawaii.