Posted on 11/29/2012 5:27:14 PM PST by djf
This question originally appeared on Quora. It was taken from Quora's "hypothetical battles" topic, where readers "can ask questions and get answer on fighting that wouldn't likely or ever happen in real life."
Answer by Jon Davis, veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, sergeant in the U.S. Marine Corps:
These are the accounts of the Second American Civil War, also known as the Wars of Reunification and the American Warring States Period. ... Here are the states that held the greatest strategic value from day one. They have the ability to be self-sufficient, economic strength, military strength, the will to fight, and the population to support a powerful war machine.
California Texas New York
Others that have many of the qualities that gave them an advantage are also listed.
Washington Colorado Illinois Virginia Florida Georgia
Excerpted... read the rest at link!
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
I live in San Diego County. And most Mexicans around here are lazy and unarmed. Perhaps those you speak of are different.
“I’m plotting a waterborne invasion to free Chicago. “
JF’nK already tried that in Boston.
***********
J F’n Kennedy also tried it in Cuba.
Is it just me? Or do I interpret this entire question on independence? I don't think the current events indicate a desire on the part of any state to invade it's neighbor. Just the "gimme" states wanting to keep their hosts attached like a tick on a dog...
Speaking to the scenario, Minot is very close to the geographic center of North America, which is just down the road. Might not be perfect, but it’s as good as it gets. You know what they say about “close” (It only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and atom bombs...)
You know Hawaii is part of the USA, right?
Fuel for power comes in by ships.
But fuel and power are not needed for heating there. And days are long.
I would not want to be in Hawaii surrounded by undrinkable water and no food or anything else coming in.
I certainly wouldn't want to be on Oahu because of the population density in Honolulu. But the other islands would be fine, relatively speaking, lots of rain to be captured for drinking, wonderful growing conditions for many foods and excellent volcanic soil (in most non-rocky places). Drinking water can also be produced by distillation. Obviously a fraction of the population would die before self-sufficiency got underway but that would be the same in all states in this scenario. The isolation of which you speak negatively would also serve to keep out diseases and roving gangs from the mainland. This would be a factor even from island to island.
Entirely different thing to nuke a city 125 air miles away.
***If push came to shove, I’d move to those nuclear sites. I could target such a city 125 miles away. If it works on an ICBM it can work with Sahib & his Cessna. Not that I’d want to. Also... not that this would ever really happen.
Entirely different thing to nuke a city 125 air miles away.
***If push came to shove, I’d move to those nuclear sites. I could target such a city 125 miles away. If it works on an ICBM it can work with Sahib & his Cessna. Not that I’d want to. Also... not that this would ever really happen.
ND can nuke the east coast, west coast and the gulf coast no problem.
Don't free it, capture it and take it to Michigan with you.
Well my point being that in terms of acquiring territory, controlling transportation, seizing control of infrastructure and communications, nukes don’t really cut it...
I’m not convinced.
Those machines carry enough fuel to carry them what, 5-7-8 thousand miles? It would be like shooting a 30-06 at a target 25 feet away, but you can’t shoot straight at it, you have to shoot up, almost straight up, and hope you hit it when the slug comes down!
I’ve read a bit about the engineering and targeting in the cruise missiles, and the whole thing is very sequence based, there are phases, they aren’t like mortars or bottle rockets, it’s very complex with constant gyroscope feedback, etc.
Well my point being that in terms of acquiring territory, controlling transportation, seizing control of infrastructure and communications, nukes don’t really cut it...
***The only way nukes cut it is as a deterrent. Are you taking deterrents off the table? Is it purely conventional warfare? Does Chemical/Biological count? Basically, in any of these other scenarios, Washington DC wins because they control the CCC & leadership.
The zombies from Detroit will eat you up. Afghanistan is a playground compared to Idaho... ask Lewis and Clark.
Of course I know Hawaii is a state but it is not connected to the mainland and that makes getting supplies there almost nonexistent if the mainland states are fighting and no ships going there.
You said, “But fuel and power are not needed for heating there. And days are long.”
You are very nearsighted when speaking of fuel and power not being needed for heating - as though fuel and power isn’t needed for anything else. Fuel cooks food, fuel runs cars, fuel makes light, fuel is used every minute of the day and it comes by SHIP. Electricity is very expensive and I said very few houses have cooling due to the expense.
I know from being there and finding out, fuel comes by ship - if no ships, no fuel except driftwood or whatever. None of those islands can do without fuel from ships unless the populace catches fish and eats it raw or makes a fire and I hope they would still have matches left over from a ship bringing them there or they have a fire maker bar that another ship brought. Maybe they have a cigarette lighter left over from a ship bringing that - they wouldn’t have to use it to light a cigarette since there wouldn’t be any cigarettes since they come by ship. Maybe they are good at rubbing two sticks together. They have little building material, not much wood, because that comes by ship to build buildings.
At least you say “a fraction of the population would die before self-sufficiency got underway...” Here in these connected states it will be much easier to find what is needed to repair and rebuild and have power.
You head out to Hawaii, build a grass hut and fish, (take matches or a flint bar) and I’ll stay in Texas.
If we were to unwrap some of the Limburger up wind we could probably hold off advances from Illinois and Minnesota indefinitely. We'd probably make a deal for mutual aid with the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and cut off the Mackinaw bridge to exclude the flatlanders. Between the Yoopers and cheese heads we could probably field about 2 million well armed men and women.
Regards,
GtG
PS There was a time when the UP was pushing for annexation by Wisconsin, too bad it never came to be as both of us would have come out ahead.
New York. Not NYC. There is a distinct difference.
NY people are very different from the “city people”. NY City people can dry up and croak as far as we are concerned. We have no use for them at all.
Not-NYers think “gang people” have all the guns. No. Most regular people I know have gunS, most “gang” people seem to have a gun or two each. Or they share. Babies.
NY-ers hunt. It’s really a huge thing here. Hunting in the hills and valleys - in the freezing cold - patiently stalking or waiting out your prey.
I won’t say much more, but just on my street alone......no worries.
Additionally we have lots of rivers, canals, shoreline. Farmland covers a lot of this state. And - we sure can drive in snow.
It is not Times Square everywhere in NY.
It sure would get interesting.
Ships have been known to come from other places than the US. Hawaii could simply buy its fuel on the open world market. Who is going to blockade them?
This is really a very silly article. For one, because the deciding lines are not like the 1860s with state loyalties as strong or stronger than national loyalties. People for the most part line up along ideological lines that in physical geography is demarcated by urban vs rural. Most states will have large groups of adherents to both sides within them making it a true civil war rather that a war between states.
Second is that the break up would be driven by half of the country wanting just to be left alone by the other half. The animosity would be like a divorced couple where one side just wants to get away from the relationship and the other wants retaliation for what they sense as an abandonment. The “Texas Republic” of this story wouldn’t be looking to conquer California to reunify the country, but defend themselves and prevent LA, SanFran, Chicago, New York, etc. from imposing on them.
I think such a conflict would be very tough on urban dwellers as much of the supplies a large city depends on could be blockaded by damage to the infrastructure. Country folks being more self sufficient would withstand the deprivation better while in the urban areas the armed and aggressive would scavenge first from their unarmed and passive neighbors before foraging out further. When the urbanites do make their way out into the country they will find the country folks more often than not armed and having greater community cohesion with neighbors banding together to protect what they have. In the end the makers will win over the takers, but the victory would be terrible and ugly and a violent conflict always something to be avoided if possible.
This is really a very silly article. For one, because the deciding lines are not like the 1860s with state loyalties as strong or stronger than national loyalties. People for the most part line up along ideological lines that in physical geography is demarcated by urban vs rural. Most states will have large groups of adherents to both sides within them making it a true civil war rather that a war between states.
Second is that the break up would be driven by half of the country wanting just to be left alone by the other half. The animosity would be like a divorced couple where one side just wants to get away from the relationship and the other wants retaliation for what they sense as an abandonment. The “Texas Republic” of this story wouldn’t be looking to conquer California to reunify the country, but defend themselves and prevent LA, SanFran, Chicago, New York, etc. from imposing on them.
I think such a conflict would be very tough on urban dwellers as much of the supplies a large city depends on could be blockaded by damage to the infrastructure. Country folks being more self sufficient would withstand the deprivation better while in the urban areas the armed and aggressive would scavenge first from their unarmed and passive neighbors before foraging out further. When the urbanites do make their way out into the country they will find the country folks more often than not armed and having greater community cohesion with neighbors banding together to protect what they have. In the end the makers will win over the takers, but the victory would be terrible and ugly and a violent conflict always something to be avoided if possible.
Pantex is in Amarillo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.