"17 states" Topic

Seventeen state attorney generals have jointly opposed Garland's announcement about the US and parents and school boards.

Without getting into the politics of this, and conceding that THIS would not be an issue likely to lead to a constitutional crisis, let's consider the list below and discuss how this might play out if it WERE an issue of fundamental rights such as the right to keep and bear arms. (Although parental control of how their children are educated is pretty fundamental, and emotional.)

Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Georgia
Indiana
Kansas
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Ohio
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah

So that's almost all the south, a couple of major midwest states, and a scattering across the west. Also the home states of the most important US Army bases.

Could the remaining 33 coerce these 17?

I would hope and argue that the US would not even try.

There are some missing red states like Kentucky and West Virginia and Florida. One might add those into the list.

More likely the Blue states are coerced.

In a Cold War.
Just have to shut down the fuel pipelines to the Northeast and West coast. Also since the Red's have Arizona, turn off the water and electric to California.

Plus, if it goes beyond the short term.
Those are the major food producing states. Good luck keeping the shelves full with backed up ports.

In a Hot War.
I pray that never happens.

Yes. Economically we are too interlocked for any division that would not wreck everything and everywhere.

Also the home states of the most important US Army bases

So, what exactly do you mean by that? What are you calling for?
You're skating pretty close to thin ice here.

I am not calling for anything except sweet reason. The point is that any likely line-up of red states versus blue produces a strategic situation, economically and constitutionally, and, last and most disastrously, militarily, in which neither side could "win". The ability of the national government to coerce compliance in the face of such a split would be be nill.

Sane politicians will know that. But not all of ours do.

So press the ! button. If Bill agrees with you, no problem. But the point I'm inviting discussion of is the "strategic balance" of one (out of many imaginable) constitutional crises in which roughly a third of our states, and not geographically contiguous, face off against the other two-thirds plus the national government. My hypothesis, which we pray is never tested, is that it would be impossible for the stronger side to coerce the weaker, and disastrous to try.

Even in the blue states, there ARE a lot of red counties and supporters, though they are outnumbered by population in the cities, which provide a lot of "free" stuff to people there.

There REALLY isn't a "stronger side", since states don't matter in stuff like this. Really, the odds ARE about even, with a 50/50 split on both sides of the divide.

I also note that a very small, ragtag band of jihadis armed with rifles, and riding on mopeds just defeated the most powerful military on the planet in Afghanistan, even though as the CiC recently pointed out, the latter has nuke weapons, and seemed to indicate a willingness to use them against his foes.

I recall a famous quote from a movie, "a long, long time ago……" in which the captive female says to the military commander/dictator, "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers".

This also applies to states and cities, and the people that live in them.

Gentlemen,

As I understand the original post, the proposal is to discuss a hypothetical conflict between the '17 states' and the rest of the nation.

Please keep politics out of it.

You're skating pretty close to thin ice here.

We were never trained to ice skate when I was in the Army.

I do agree IN PART with Thresher that states do not matter in something like this; it is certainly true that blue states have rural areas tending red, while Austin, for example, is a blue dot in the midst of red Texas.

HOWEVER, political legitimacy matters, and a state government popularly elected by the people of a state, and operating under its constitution and laws, has an important status. Plus states have some level of military organization, some more and some less, with, again, a recognized chain of command. Another case of legitimacy.

So politically and organizationally states would be important. But so too would be propaganda and other communications aimed at sympathizers in the other part of the country.

It comes down to population control, in the long run, if there IS a long run. The side that can best draw support from the largest population will win. "Support" means political legitimacy, economic assets (from food and fuel on up), and manpower, especially recruits.

Someone may know to what extent the national government would be able to control the internet, control local radio stations, control printed newspapers, control interstate travel (which is a 1st Amendment right). That would matter, and my guess is that "the signal would always find a way."

link

The six largest National Guards by states are Texas, Ca, Pa, NY, Ohio, and Ga. So three vs three in terms of our match-up of 17 vs 33.

I have no knowledge, but assume that governors still have a big say in who commands their state's guard. Perhaps someone else can advise?

An interesting exercise on a what if scenario. It wouldn't be like the Civil War. As has been noted, if you divided just red vs blue, the populations are intertwined across the country. It really is urban vs rural in every state. Also questions would have to be resolved on the allegiance of the military assets around the country and that includes national guard. Nuclear assets as well.

I think the scenario would end like the Civil War did. The federal government, regardless of party in power won't relinquish control readily. Doubt they'd just stand by and let the country be split apart either. So in this case, the 33 would be hostile to the 17 but all sides would be beset by massive civilian fighting resolved only by the complete extirpation of the hostile forces within their borders. The 17 have the farms but food could be imported from Canada. Assuming the assets on the bases went with the states, the 17 would have to strike quickly or face destruction since most heavy weapon systems are not based in their territory. The 33 can resupply and has a larger population base. It would be a matter of time and would result in millions dead. The only winners would be China and Russia. I don't doubt they would love to see this scenario play out.

Doc…I'm glad you brought this up and immediately said, "without getting into the politics of this." Made all the difference.

Isn't there a better website to discuss this (FOX, OAN, CNN, MSNBC)? Just scroll down to the comments section of any article and there you go. Or perhaps the Blue Fez?

No mention of miniatures, and here I thought I was on The Miniatures Page.

Political legitimacy would not be an issue. I do not really know what to make of this topic. Clearly political and divisive.

Which gives me equal time to say that I am hoping that we find the courage to unite as one nation before our foreign adversaries make this kind of politicized speculation a moot point.

"HOWEVER, political legitimacy matters, and a state government popularly elected by the people of a state, and operating under its constitution and laws, has an important status".

That doesn't matter if/when civil war breaks out again, since the 17+ states will NOT follow the orders or "mandates" of the majority.

More rural areas have the food production means, and can survive food distribution disruptions, and attacks on infrastructure better. Large cities are very, VERY vulnerable to loss of services and food.

The wild card will be who the troops will be loyal to, which is why we're seeing purges happening in the military now.

On the plus side for the freedom loving separatists, we now have TWO examples in recent history of poorly armed, "peasant armies" defeating a much larger, far better equipped force, so short of using nuke weapons, or other WMDs, I don't see how the larger, more powerful side wins if the "rebels" stay strong and refuse to concede.

Reminds me a bit of the movie, Red Dawn, though instead of Cubans, Russians, North Koreans, or Communist Chinese as the bad guys, the opposition comes from within.

Guro, yes, that hideous outcome is a likely one. Thresher, yes, it would probably be a long long war.

In the absence of stupidity, which is unlikely, the "successionist" state would realize that doing this would utterly impoverish them. Mutual economic suicide by utter destruction of the economy.

This isn't part of the above argument, but on an everyday basis, blue states heavily subsidize red states (not every single blue state and every single red state, but overall).

Isn't it an easy "rural" win ? They just nuke all the cities!

Have a nice day, y'all …

blue states heavily subsidize red states

Isn't that because entertainment sells for more than food and fuel? :)

Nukes: I have trouble imaging a civil war in which either side would nuke its own territory. But yes, cities are bigger targets that farms.

What about foreign troops being brought in? The colonists didn't like the Hessians, though their use was unexceptional in Britain. I can see nukes being used against what is perceived as a foreign invasion.

Would like to see the source of the comment regarding blue states. With no facts it is only opinion.

This is a highly contested accusation, and the answer depends on definitions. See the search results below, they go in both directions.

link

Isn't it an easy "rural" win ? They just nuke all the cities!

I think Xi and Putin are working on this option.

Iran too … but they still don't have nukes … yet. Based the current situation, they will probably have them sooner than later.

Un is just more concerned about staying in power. He knows he may get 1 shot. Then our reaction would mean it's "game over" for him & his supporters.

It's not an opinion. Conrtested only as to degree of assistance. Highly contested because it does not fit some narratives. It's somewhat of a moving target year to year, but it is generally a substantial amount. We pay more in taxes in MA than we get back from the Feds every year. My people in Kentucky get more than they pay. They need it. You are welcome, Mitch. It is what it is, glad to share.

We got 20 billion to mid west farmers when the new tariffs wrecked their economy a couple of years ago. No problem, we all need money and like to eat. It's the United States. UNITED. Maybe some people can't deal with that anymore.

Tort, how much of that is because Kentucky has Fort Knox? A LOT. Which certainly benefits the pawn shops and tattoo parlors outside the gate. But presumably the benefit of the Armor School and the Gold Repository accrue to all Americans?

I think the scenario would end like the Civil War did.
The federal government, regardless of party in power won't relinquish control readily.

I don't think it would end like the Civil War.

The American political spectrum is far more divided now. I don't see the red state Congress people abandoning their core constituents. The modern Republicans are a long away from the era of Lincoln.

It could be then that the Federal response is muted or subdued.

I see some other issues:

1. The federal US military is much bigger than 1861-65. There is clearly an attempt to politicise it even more by focusing on "culture". Deploying it to quell rebellion would probably see the country tear itself even more apart as the US army would be seen as an occupying force.

2. Insurgency tactics are far more evolved, far more deadly and far more harder to root out than in 1861-65.

3. Military units are far more complicated and reliant on technology and skilled staff now than in 1861-65. If the US military suffers desertion from red state members then units might lose all combat capability.

Eg An AH-64 unit cannot fly if it loses maintainers. It also can't fly if key parts are produced somewhere else and that somewhere else no longer supplies them (indeed one of the main criticisms of the F-35 program and look at delays when Turkey was dropped from program).

The US military could degrade much like Syria's did whereby whole units simply disintegrated over night without seeing combat.

The new Red/Blue/Federal units would devolve in terms of technological but also tactical capability. A lot of equipment would become a source of parts.

I suspect within a couple of years, you're looking at units in 4 wheel drives with 50 calibre machine guns supported by mortars and cheap drones with heavy equipment like fighter aircraft or tanks used sparingly for major offensives or even kept in reserve just in case.

Again this happens in other civil and modern peer wars where some conventional capability is never even deployed due to its scarcity. Eg Armenia never deployed its Su-30s or Iskander ballistic missiles even though it was losing!

Yes, all of that sounds likely.

Doc, Fort Knox is a different budget entirely.
The numbers we are taliking about reflect aid to individuals and aid to the state government vs amount paid in taxes to the Feds. In general, red states need more and blue states give more help.

I mentioned the tariff impact assistance, which I believe lasted a couple of years. Kentucky just got major funds to shore up its failing child care system. This is one of the needs that allows people there to go to work, and it's also helping to drive the national labor shortage. State revenues alone in many states cannot fix this.

But presumably the benefit of the Armor School and the Gold Repository accrue to all Americans?

There is no Gold at Knox. I know a friend in the Army who was there. And the History Channel had a show on No Gold at Ft. Knox. The Gold has been gone for years from Knox. Where is it ? I'm sure that is very classified … or it was all used up ?

The US Army Armor school was move to Ft Benning, GA a few years back. Benning[name will probably be changed]has now both the Infantry & Armor Schools. As it is more of the US Army Combined Arms Center.

The American political spectrum is far more divided now.

It is very divided, never saw anything like this to this level. However, the 2022 Congressional elections will change things. 'nuff said.

IMO the USA will not go into another civil are. However, some say, including me, we are in a "virtual" ACW 2.0. With no victory insight in the short run.

It occurs to me that this thread really belongs on the Modern What If board does it not? Its more like Sci-Fi, or alt history, like those books where the Confederates have machine guns.

As bad as things might seem, there are also good things happening, like federal help for Kentucky kids and parents to be able to afford to go back to work. Its almost like we don't want to hear this kind of news, wont believe it, denigrate it, ignore it.

I don't think calling us brainwashed is inappropriate when it comes to the topic of our understanding of blue vs red. Propaganda has played a major role in fostering our divisions. It is part of a very profitable media business model that started on the right and has become the norm. The only "Nation" I want to belong to is the United States.

Counting only public spending leaves out a lot. A red-state family with a steady job -- likely at a lower wage than prevails in a blue state -- may be better off not only economically but in terms of family stability, self-respect, etc, than a blue stater who is unemployed and receiving government subsidies. FROM where, and TO WHERE, are people moving? Where is the economic growth? where is the middle class? not in San Francisco, where you have the rich and the poor, of whom the lucky ones get hired as yardmen and nannies.

No it does not. Why would you think this? You could easily reverse the red and blue in your statement.

With all due respect doc, this is the heart of the problem. It does not matter your state or politics. all the Cleavers do not live in red states, while the blue states are Marxist.
Think American and forget your sectional agenda.

It isn't really a sectional agenda. It is ideology that divides. And as we have agreed, many "conservatives" live in blue states, especially but not limited to rural areas, while many Progressives live in red-states, especially in their cities and university towns. It is not where you live nor what color your skin is, but your view of reality and your deeply held values. It is a cultural division.

Maybe the best historical parallel is Europe during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. It isn't just specific issues like indulgences and the pope's authority versus scripture, it is two fundamentally different visions of reality and of what a good society is. And good-hearted people like Erasmus, trying to be on both sides, were doomed to disappointment.

where the Confederates have machine guns.

They didn't ?!?!?😮

"The sand in the desert is sodden and red,
red with the wreck of a square that broke;
the gatling's jammed and the colonel dead
and the regiment blind with dust and smoke."

Yes, there were gating guns during the ACW, and the SAW, the Indian Wars[or is that the Indigenous Peoples Wars?].

Is that Kipling ? I like it ! 👍👍

But I was thinking more of M2 .50 cals., M60s, MG 42s, etc. 😁

It's that Turtledove guy who writes those alternatiive history novels, is it not?

Good guesses, but no: from my 9th grade lit book, c. 1960:

Vitaï Lampada

There's a breathless hush in the Close to-night —
Ten to make and the match to win —
A bumping pitch and a blinding light,
An hour to play and the last man in.
And it's not for the sake of a ribboned coat,
Or the selfish hope of a season's fame,
But his Captain's hand on his shoulder smote
"Play up! play up! and play the game!"

The sand of the desert is sodden red, —
Red with the wreck of a square that broke; —
The Gatling's jammed and the colonel dead,
And the regiment blind with dust and smoke.
The river of death has brimmed his banks,
And England's far, and Honour a name,
But the voice of schoolboy rallies the ranks,
"Play up! play up! and play the game!"

This is the word that year by year
While in her place the School is set
Every one of her sons must hear,
And none that hears it dare forget.
This they all with a joyful mind
Bear through life like a torch in flame,
And falling fling to the host behind —
"Play up! play up! and play the game!"

Henry Newbolt

It's that Turtledove guy who writes those alternatiive history novels, is it not?

Yes, I never read any of his books, but it does sound interesting …

Thanks for the poem doc … I kind'a like it !

The Newbolt is long in the memory of Colonial gamers

And many incorrectly attribute it to Kipling.