Second American Civil War

[Ifreann]

Because the first one happened and the second one wouldn't happen.

Most people thought the first wouldn't happen until the mid 1850s.

And they were wrong, obviously.

[The Zeonic States]

Chuck Norris would singlehandedly conquer the North in a heartbeat by (insert prefered impossible herculean feat here).

Seriously if that ever happened I don't see what forces the South would be able to count on in such an insurrection. Seeing as they would be at an economic, population and military disadvantage they would quickly be defeated.

There are several dozen major military facualities located within the south each housing thousands upon thousands of soldiers, each holding its own suppy of Tanks, Helicopters,Ammuniation and other needed supplies of war, A few even supposedly house nuclear stockpiles, How quickly is quickly in the case that even one or two of these bases sided with the south? In a outright war the north would probably win because most of the production lines for aircraft and tanks are located there, but in a Gurrelia style action? I would bet on the south after considering a few options such as mass desertation and international influence in the conflict, No doubt there are quite a few powers that would supply both sides in this conflict just to keep it going, it would turn the Second American civil into a chance to mass profit for the Arms industrial complex.

Even if the South lost, I bet it would not quickly, and if the North won it would not be quickly. Many people thought the first civil war would end within months of it start, they were wrong.

[Wamitoria]

Chuck Norris would singlehandedly conquer the North in a heartbeat by (insert prefered impossible herculean feat here).

Seriously if that ever happened I don't see what forces the South would be able to count on in such an insurrection. Seeing as they would be at an economic, population and military disadvantage they would quickly be defeated.

There are several dozen major military facualities located within the south each housing thousands upon thousands of soldiers, each holding its own suppy of Tanks, Helicopters,Ammuniation and other needed supplies of war, A few even supposedly house nuclear stockpiles, How quickly is quickly in the case that even one or two of these bases sided with the south? In a outright war the north would probably win because most of the production lines for aircraft and tanks are located there, but in a Gurrelia style action? I would bet on the south after considering a few options such as mass desertation and international influence in the conflict, No doubt there are quite a few powers that would supply both sides in this conflict just to keep it going, it would turn the Second American civil into a chance to mass profit for the Arms industrial complex.

Even if the South lost, I bet it would not quickly, and if the North won it would not be quickly. Many people thought the first civil war would end within months of it start, they were wrong.

Soldiers stationed at nuclear launch facilities aren't ever from the state in which the nuclear launch facility exists.

[Demphor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

Last time they tried we caught it, so it's not gonna happen again.

[The Zeonic States]

There are several dozen major military facualities located within the south each housing thousands upon thousands of soldiers, each holding its own suppy of Tanks, Helicopters,Ammuniation and other needed supplies of war, A few even supposedly house nuclear stockpiles, How quickly is quickly in the case that even one or two of these bases sided with the south? In a outright war the north would probably win because most of the production lines for aircraft and tanks are located there, but in a Gurrelia style action? I would bet on the south after considering a few options such as mass desertation and international influence in the conflict, No doubt there are quite a few powers that would supply both sides in this conflict just to keep it going, it would turn the Second American civil into a chance to mass profit for the Arms industrial complex.

Even if the South lost, I bet it would not quickly, and if the North won it would not be quickly. Many people thought the first civil war would end within months of it start, they were wrong.

Soldiers stationed at nuclear launch facilities aren't ever from the state in which the nuclear launch facility exists.

That seem's like a very complicated and ultimately pointless process of positioning forces but i am not the on the United State's Military board of advisors so i guess i will keep my opinions to myself on the matter.

[San-Silvacian]

Soldiers stationed at nuclear launch facilities aren't ever from the state in which the nuclear launch facility exists.

That seem's like a very complicated and ultimately pointless process of positioning forces but i am not the on the United State's Military board of advisors so i guess i will keep my opinions to myself on the matter.

Its not as complicated really.

[Maurepas]

It depends, and it depends on pretty much the same factors as the first one, it's just a matter of whether it would be accomplished this time around.

1) Every Southern member of the US military would need to be able to join the Secessionist army.

2) With the use of those men and materiel a victory would need to occur before the Federal forces could mobilize enough to take them down.

And of course, that's assuming that the non-white population in the South is fully in support of this venture.

And those are pretty big factors and ifs, my prediction would be that ultimately they would not happen, and the North would win, through sheer industrialized might, and the disunity of the Southern States.

[Black-and-White]

I say let the South secede. Maybe then there won't be so many fucking religious bigots corrupting the North and I'll finally get a rest from Mitt Romneyesque people running shit into the ground.

[Maurepas]

I say let the South secede. Maybe then there won't be so many fucking religious bigots corrupting the North and I'll finally get a rest from Mitt Romneyesque people running shit into the ground.

To be fair, Mitt Romney was the governor of Massachusetts and was born in Detroit. So, I'm not entirely sure just losing the South would rid you of Mittens.

[Jewcrew]

Interesting how this has devolved into a North VS. South thing again.

Anyone here watched 'Jericko'? It is perfectly plausible that a civil war could erupt after a catastrophe destroys the American government. Two or more sides could develop deciding which group of people is to lead the government next.

In the end, this very hypothetical scenario could go any number of ways, and North VS. South is not the most plausible one. The cultural divide, which is Urban VS. Rural rather than North VS. South, is still nowhere near as wide as it was during the first American Civil War. As much as some people would like to think otherwise, someone that thinks that marriage is between a man and a woman is no where near on the same plane of cultural thought as a person that believes all homosexuals should be killed.

Culture just isn't likely to be the cause of another American civil war, and it certainly won't be North VS. South. And if culture does somehow cause another civil war, it's fairly obvious that the rural would win, as all they have to do is cut off the food and resource supply of the urbanites, and the urban side would collapse rapidly.

[Trotskylvania]

Interesting how this has devolved into a North VS. South thing again.

Anyone here watched 'Jericko'? It is perfectly plausible that a civil war could erupt after a catastrophe destroys the American government. Two or more sides could develop deciding which group of people is to lead the government next.

In the end, this very hypothetical scenario could go any number of ways, and North VS. South is not the most plausible one. The cultural divide, which is Urban VS. Rural rather than North VS. South, is still nowhere near as wide as it was during the first American Civil War. As much as some people would like to think otherwise, someone that thinks that marriage is between a man and a woman is no where near on the same plane of cultural thought as a person that believes all homosexuals should be killed.

Culture just isn't likely to be the cause of another American civil war, and it certainly won't be North VS. South. And if culture does somehow cause another civil war, it's fairly obvious that the rural would win, as all they have to do is cut off the food and resource supply of the urbanites, and the urban side would collapse within weeks.

Urbanites outnumber rurals overwhelmingly. The necessary resources to make mechanized agriculture work all come from cities, where they have been refined into a useful form.

So, in a hypothetical rural vs. urban conflict, the ruralites would be the ones losing hard.

That said, such a conflict would not happen due to interdependence.

[Conserative Morality]

Culture just isn't likely to be the cause of another American civil war, and it certainly won't be North VS. South. And if culture does somehow cause another civil war, it's fairly obvious that the rural would win, as all they have to do is cut off the food and resource supply of the urbanites, and the urban side would collapse rapidly.

So let me get this straight...

If the rural side stopped transporting food to the urban side, not only would the urban side that controls a great deal of airports and seaports be unable to ship in food from elsewhere, but also would be unable to seize the food and resources from the rural side via force?

[Jewcrew]

Interesting how this has devolved into a North VS. South thing again.

Anyone here watched 'Jericko'? It is perfectly plausible that a civil war could erupt after a catastrophe destroys the American government. Two or more sides could develop deciding which group of people is to lead the government next.

In the end, this very hypothetical scenario could go any number of ways, and North VS. South is not the most plausible one. The cultural divide, which is Urban VS. Rural rather than North VS. South, is still nowhere near as wide as it was during the first American Civil War. As much as some people would like to think otherwise, someone that thinks that marriage is between a man and a woman is no where near on the same plane of cultural thought as a person that believes all homosexuals should be killed.

Culture just isn't likely to be the cause of another American civil war, and it certainly won't be North VS. South. And if culture does somehow cause another civil war, it's fairly obvious that the rural would win, as all they have to do is cut off the food and resource supply of the urbanites, and the urban side would collapse within weeks.

Urbanites outnumber rurals overwhelmingly. The necessary resources to make mechanized agriculture work all come from cities, where they have been refined into a useful form.

So, in a hypothetical rural vs. urban conflict, the ruralites would be the ones losing hard.

That said, such a conflict would not happen due to interdependence.

The population of the urbanites is what would be their downfall. More food and resources needed with little actual production. The 'ruralites' (I LIKE THIS WORD AND I DON'T KNOW WHY!) could, if necessary, resort to more primitive forms of agricultural and resource production, just enough to serve themselves. The entire war could be won without a fight, as city people would be hard pressed to become farmers.

[Jewcrew]

Culture just isn't likely to be the cause of another American civil war, and it certainly won't be North VS. South. And if culture does somehow cause another civil war, it's fairly obvious that the rural would win, as all they have to do is cut off the food and resource supply of the urbanites, and the urban side would collapse rapidly.

So let me get this straight...

If the rural side stopped transporting food to the urban side, not only would the urban side that controls a great deal of airports and seaports be unable to ship in food from elsewhere, but also would be unable to seize the food and resources from the rural side via force?

The urban side would have to reform its economy practically overnight to survive without the rural production. Assuming equal military numbers (a stretch, since most soldiers come from more rural settings and smaller cities), the cities would have the power to harass, but not take enough by force to survive economically.

Sure, the rural side would be screwed in the end as well, but the urbanites would fall a lot faster, and a lot harder.

[Trotskylvania]

Urbanites outnumber rurals overwhelmingly. The necessary resources to make mechanized agriculture work all come from cities, where they have been refined into a useful form.

So, in a hypothetical rural vs. urban conflict, the ruralites would be the ones losing hard.

That said, such a conflict would not happen due to interdependence.

The population of the urbanites is what would be their downfall. More food and resources needed with little actual production. The 'ruralites' (I LIKE THIS WORD AND I DON'T KNOW WHY!) could, if necessary, resort to more primitive forms of agricultural and resource production, just enough to serve themselves. The entire war could be won without a fight, as city people would be hard pressed to become farmers.

Do you know what resorting to more primitive methods would mean? Nothing would be grown, since modern agriculture has despoiled the land so much that growing crops is impossible without chemical fertilizers. Which are produced in cities.

Ruralites produce raw materials in general. Manufacturing and processing almost invariably happen in urban areas. Concentrations of capital require concentrations of people. They are the ones who have the means to manufacture arms, as well as the critical fuel, fertilizer and other supplies that rural populations need to function.

Besides, most urban areas have more than enough food to last for months. And if they can communicate with one another, they have a year's food supply at least. Harvest happens once a year bro. The food you're eating was at the very least harvested last year, or else imported from some place that can sustain around the year production.

[Miss Defied]

Interesting how this has devolved into a North VS. South thing again.

Anyone here watched 'Jericko'? It is perfectly plausible that a civil war could erupt after a catastrophe destroys the American government. Two or more sides could develop deciding which group of people is to lead the government next.

In the end, this very hypothetical scenario could go any number of ways, and North VS. South is not the most plausible one. The cultural divide, which is Urban VS. Rural rather than North VS. South, is still nowhere near as wide as it was during the first American Civil War. As much as some people would like to think otherwise, someone that thinks that marriage is between a man and a woman is no where near on the same plane of cultural thought as a person that believes all homosexuals should be killed.

Culture just isn't likely to be the cause of another American civil war, and it certainly won't be North VS. South. And if culture does somehow cause another civil war, it's fairly obvious that the rural would win, as all they have to do is cut off the food and resource supply of the urbanites, and the urban side would collapse rapidly.

Loved Jericho. You might note the problems the town had despite being "rural" so with that in mind your argument for their "winning" falls a bit short.
I would take issue with your notion of a cultural war and there somehow being an urban vs. rural divide. I just don't see this at all. And I say that as someone raised in the suburbs, educated in the city and currently residing in a rural environment. There are many more cultural divides that separate Americans moreso than location.

[Conserative Morality]

The urban side would have to reform its economy practically overnight to survive without the rural production. Assuming equal military numbers (a stretch, since most soldiers come from more rural settings and smaller cities), the cities would have the power to harass, but not take enough by force to survive economically.

Sure, the rural side would be screwed in the end as well, but the urbanites would fall a lot faster, and a lot harder.

Over...

Overnight?

What?

And most soldiers do not come from rural settings. Only about 20% of US servicemen and women come from rural areas.

[Trotskylvania]

So let me get this straight...

If the rural side stopped transporting food to the urban side, not only would the urban side that controls a great deal of airports and seaports be unable to ship in food from elsewhere, but also would be unable to seize the food and resources from the rural side via force?

The urban side would have to reform its economy practically overnight to survive without the rural production. Assuming equal military numbers (a stretch, since most soldiers come from more rural settings and smaller cities), the cities would have the power to harass, but not take enough by force to survive economically.

Sure, the rural side would be screwed in the end as well, but the urbanites would fall a lot faster, and a lot harder.

Maybe as it stands right now. But if ruralites were so stupid as to think they could cut off their food supply, they'd be arming themselves in short order. As I previously stated, there's more of them, they're better organized, and they have total control of manufacturing and refining. They win by default.

[Jewcrew]

The population of the urbanites is what would be their downfall. More food and resources needed with little actual production. The 'ruralites' (I LIKE THIS WORD AND I DON'T KNOW WHY!) could, if necessary, resort to more primitive forms of agricultural and resource production, just enough to serve themselves. The entire war could be won without a fight, as city people would be hard pressed to become farmers.

Do you know what resorting to more primitive methods would mean? Nothing would be grown, since modern agriculture has despoiled the land so much that growing crops is impossible without chemical fertilizers. Which are produced in cities.

Ruralites produce raw materials in general. Manufacturing and processing almost invariably happen in urban areas. Concentrations of capital require concentrations of people. They are the ones who have the means to manufacture arms, as well as the critical fuel, fertilizer and other supplies that rural populations need to function.

Besides, most urban areas have more than enough food to last for months. And if they can communicate with one another, they have a year's food supply at least. Harvest happens once a year bro. The food you're eating was at the very least harvested last year, or else imported from some place that can sustain around the year production.

I have not enough brain power right now to refute most of this, and probably can't.

However...

The urban areas would have to travel through rural areas to share that food.

[Jewcrew]

Interesting how this has devolved into a North VS. South thing again.

Anyone here watched 'Jericko'? It is perfectly plausible that a civil war could erupt after a catastrophe destroys the American government. Two or more sides could develop deciding which group of people is to lead the government next.

In the end, this very hypothetical scenario could go any number of ways, and North VS. South is not the most plausible one. The cultural divide, which is Urban VS. Rural rather than North VS. South, is still nowhere near as wide as it was during the first American Civil War. As much as some people would like to think otherwise, someone that thinks that marriage is between a man and a woman is no where near on the same plane of cultural thought as a person that believes all homosexuals should be killed.

Culture just isn't likely to be the cause of another American civil war, and it certainly won't be North VS. South. And if culture does somehow cause another civil war, it's fairly obvious that the rural would win, as all they have to do is cut off the food and resource supply of the urbanites, and the urban side would collapse rapidly.

Loved Jericho. You might note the problems the town had despite being "rural" so with that in mind your argument for their "winning" falls a bit short.
I would take issue with your notion of a cultural war and there somehow being an urban vs. rural divide. I just don't see this at all. And I say that as someone raised in the suburbs, educated in the city and currently residing in a rural environment. There are many more cultural divides that separate Americans moreso than location.

I don't think it's plausible, either, but it's more plausible than North VS. South by far. Frankly, the whole setup we have in North America is rather messed up when it comes to cultural divide. Alberta, Saskatchwan, Manitoba and the American mid-west have far more in common with each other than they do other groups provinces/states in their own countries. Frankly, the whole system is FUBAR.

[Jewcrew]

The urban side would have to reform its economy practically overnight to survive without the rural production. Assuming equal military numbers (a stretch, since most soldiers come from more rural settings and smaller cities), the cities would have the power to harass, but not take enough by force to survive economically.

Sure, the rural side would be screwed in the end as well, but the urbanites would fall a lot faster, and a lot harder.

Over...

Overnight?

What?

And most soldiers do not come from rural settings. Only about 20% of US servicemen and women come from rural areas.

I didn't say just rural, I said rural and smaller cities. If you want me to be more specific, rural, small towns, small cities and suburbs. Large cities provide very few soldiers to the army in comparison to their populations.

[Jewcrew]

The urban side would have to reform its economy practically overnight to survive without the rural production. Assuming equal military numbers (a stretch, since most soldiers come from more rural settings and smaller cities), the cities would have the power to harass, but not take enough by force to survive economically.

Sure, the rural side would be screwed in the end as well, but the urbanites would fall a lot faster, and a lot harder.

Maybe as it stands right now. But if ruralites were so stupid as to think they could cut off their food supply, they'd be arming themselves in short order. As I previously stated, there's more of them, they're better organized, and they have total control of manufacturing and refining. They win by default.

I disagree, as one also needs resources. I can't see the urban centres having enough resources to maintain themselves for any extended period of time. While the more rural areas could rework themselves and build up manufacturing, since they have resources, I don't see how any urban centre could quickly build up a resource base, and it certainly wouldn't have the monetary resources to maintain a resource base for long.

Unless we assume slavery...

Okay, now I'm just getting silly.

[Conserative Morality]

I didn't say just rural, I said rural and smaller cities. If you want me to be more specific, rural, small towns, small cities and suburbs. Large cities provide very few soldiers to the army in comparison to their populations.

As someone who lives in a smaller city in the US, I can assure you that there is a huge divide between us and the rural areas of the country. I don't see why you group us in with them. Furthermore, while urban centers provide fewer recruits as a percentage of their population, they provide more recruits overall.

[Jewcrew]

I didn't say just rural, I said rural and smaller cities. If you want me to be more specific, rural, small towns, small cities and suburbs. Large cities provide very few soldiers to the army in comparison to their populations.

As someone who lives in a smaller city in the US, I can assure you that there is a huge divide between us and the rural areas of the country. I don't see why you group us in with them. Furthermore, while urban centers provide fewer recruits as a percentage of their population, they provide more recruits overall.

I haven't read the statistics in a while. You have a source giving any?

Remember that this is one big hypothetical, and I'm Canadian. If we ever split up, it's pretty obvious what's going to happen here.

[Conserative Morality]

I haven't read the statistics in a while. You have a source giving any?

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/archives/metropolitan_planning/cps2k.cfm

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/2010urbanruralclass.html

http://www.dailyyonder.com/largest-share-army-recruits-come-ruralexurban-america/2009/03/02/1962