Another American Civil War

[Farnhamia]

which side owns more nukes? im guessing south but i dont know

That's a real good way to re-unite a country, by nuking the other side.

[Maurepas]

which side owns more nukes? im guessing south but i dont know

That's a real good way to re-unite a country, by nuking the other side.

Yeah, I think MAD prettymuch renders the Nuke argument moot...And nukes in general, imo...Idk why we even have the damned things...

[Buxtahatche]

Mostly I'm interested in how it took the US over 50 years to recover from the Civil War. We started building the transcontinental railway during that war, and we enacted the Homestead Act, too, both of which could easily have been put off as too expensive during a major war. Yet they were not.

How long did the railroad take to complete?
How much faster could it have been completed without diverting steel for munitions, or having to constantly replace sabotaged/destroyed trackage in theater? How much more manpower could have been thrown at the effort?

The Homestead act was successful BECAUSE OF the war, rather than in spite of it.
Many of the people settling the West were former soldiers, slaves or sharecroppers who no longer had employment (or in the case of the slaves and sharecroppers, a home at all). In fact, the act would have likely never been PASSED if the South had not left the Union, as they had enough power to filibuster the bill into submission (and did kill similar bills over the years).

The difficulty in recovering form the War has more to do with the decreased economic output of the South AND North as a result of the changes and destruction that developed as a result of the conflict. The West is what brought us out of that decline, not proof that it didn't exist.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

I think the South could win, if they read Sun Zu Art of War, and take to heart about how to fight a war with the least amount of resources possible.

*nod*

Learning to read Chinese would be a very wise move.

[Secruss]

[Buxtahatche]

which side owns more nukes? im guessing south but i dont know

That's a real good way to re-unite a country, by nuking the other side.

Yeah, I think MAD prettymuch renders the Nuke argument moot...And nukes in general, imo...Idk why we even have the damned things...

'We' have nukes because 'they' have nukes.
It don't matter overmuch who 'we' or 'they' happen to be, just that if 'we' didn't have them, 'they' probably wouldn't give them up. Because of that, everyone thinks they need them.

[Euroslavia]

Posting a picture alone with no commentary is spam. I've noticed that you've done this many times in the past. Don't do it again.

[The Scandinvans]

Posting a picture alone with no commentary is spam. I've noticed that you've done this many times in the past. Don't do it again.

Really, what happens if the picture has commentary in it?

[Tekania]

Yeah, I was actually thinking my first move from the "CSA"'s side would be to obtain a Pacific port somehow, either through California or Mexico...

and, if that was successful, I had the slightly crazier thought, due to us having the shipbuilding yards about 20 minutes from here, of having Naval vessels dismantled and transported overland to be reassembled at the port, all Roman style...

Utterly implausible but I think in fantastic scenarios like that,

Your shipyard idea also got me thinking.... The USA Pacific forces would also need to be very careful with the Carriers... Newport News Naval Shipyard, is the only one with large enough drydocks to handle extensive repairs on the big Nimitz carriers...

As for the disassembly of vessels, it would be quicker to get them through the Panama Canal than to transport them by land.....

And I was also considering that the USA Pacific forces might not be able to reliably counter Alaska, with the lack of quite abit of Northern Naval forces in the Atlantic, the CSA could mount enough presence in the Pacific, at least to keep the Pacific USA Naval forces from being able to mount a massive by-sea invasion of Alaska...

In any case, assuming we split Naval forces @ where they presently sit... It would make some pretty good Naval Engagements to the level that hasn't been seen since WW2

[Doichlogs]

Mass mobilization of poorly/untrained militias and the collapse of industry due to resulting disruption of interstate commerce and banking would leave the country in far less of a second "Civil War" such as the OP suggests and more of an "America pulls a Somalia" type conflict

Hell, without interstate commerce petrochemical fertilizers wouldn't be delivered, resulting in mass crop failures- The US would even have Somalia's mass starvation.


So who would win? Based on Somalia's example the conflict would go on for indefinately.

^^ this

The First Civil War could only maintain semi-long term status because both sides economies' were able to maintain a sustainable economy through the war, largely through subsistence methods. Today's global economy would not allow the United States to split in two without consequences. Freedom of movement between the states is crucial to all states' economies, especially for national/international corporations. What does a company like Wal★Mart do, only sell to the South because it's based there, or move out of the country altogether until the conflict is resolved? +10% of Federal revenue is derived from corporate tax (not to mention state corporate tax), this would be a major problem especially for Northern states where many of these corporations are based. Plus where do all the individuals whose incomes comes from corporations go? The rich corpie folks won't be getting much of an income anymore so there goes a lot of income tax. In fact there goes at least half our economy. I predict global depression if this were to happen tomorrow.

[Greed and Death]

Mass mobilization of poorly/untrained militias and the collapse of industry due to resulting disruption of interstate commerce and banking would leave the country in far less of a second "Civil War" such as the OP suggests and more of an "America pulls a Somalia" type conflict

Hell, without interstate commerce petrochemical fertilizers wouldn't be delivered, resulting in mass crop failures- The US would even have Somalia's mass starvation.


So who would win? Based on Somalia's example the conflict would go on for indefinately.

^^ this

The First Civil War could only maintain semi-long term status because both sides economies' were able to maintain a sustainable economy through the war, largely through subsistence methods. Today's global economy would not allow the United States to split in two without consequences. Freedom of movement between the states is crucial to all states' economies, especially for national/international corporations. What does a company like Wal★Mart do, only sell to the South because it's based there, or move out of the country altogether until the conflict is resolved? +10% of Federal revenue is derived from corporate tax (not to mention state corporate tax), this would be a major problem especially for Northern states where many of these corporations are based. Plus where do all the individuals whose incomes comes from corporations go? The rich corpie folks won't be getting much of an income anymore so there goes a lot of income tax. In fact there goes at least half our economy. I predict global depression if this were to happen tomorrow.

No no no. We could split into two. We would just out of economic necessity enact free trade and have the south join Nafta. Then get those 20 dollar passport cards and have free movement of people as long as they are transporting goods.
What we couldn't afford to do is fight a war about it.

The main benefit to the south is that they would get 65-75% of the military's equipment and trained personnel, with none of the debt the US ran up paying for it.

The main benefit to the north is they could have a single payer health care system in about 5 minutes. Given their per capita Debt has just doubled, so they might not able to afford it.

[Doichlogs]

Mass mobilization of poorly/untrained militias and the collapse of industry due to resulting disruption of interstate commerce and banking would leave the country in far less of a second "Civil War" such as the OP suggests and more of an "America pulls a Somalia" type conflict

Hell, without interstate commerce petrochemical fertilizers wouldn't be delivered, resulting in mass crop failures- The US would even have Somalia's mass starvation.


So who would win? Based on Somalia's example the conflict would go on for indefinately.

^^ this

The First Civil War could only maintain semi-long term status because both sides economies' were able to maintain a sustainable economy through the war, largely through subsistence methods. Today's global economy would not allow the United States to split in two without consequences. Freedom of movement between the states is crucial to all states' economies, especially for national/international corporations. What does a company like Wal★Mart do, only sell to the South because it's based there, or move out of the country altogether until the conflict is resolved? +10% of Federal revenue is derived from corporate tax (not to mention state corporate tax), this would be a major problem especially for Northern states where many of these corporations are based. Plus where do all the individuals whose incomes comes from corporations go? The rich corpie folks won't be getting much of an income anymore so there goes a lot of income tax. In fact there goes at least half our economy. I predict global depression if this were to happen tomorrow.

No no no. We could split into two. We would just out of economic necessity enact free trade and have the south join Nafta. Then get those 20 dollar passport cards and have free movement of people as long as they are transporting goods.
What we couldn't afford to do is fight a war about it.

The main benefit to the south is that they would get 65-75% of the military's equipment and trained personnel, with none of the debt the US ran up paying for it.

The main benefit to the north is they could have a single payer health care system in about 5 minutes. Given their per capita Debt has just doubled, so they might not able to afford it.

The thread is called "another Civil War," not "a peaceful secession movement and then signing of free trade agreements." An even more unlikely scenario that is.

[Greed and Death]

^^ this

The First Civil War could only maintain semi-long term status because both sides economies' were able to maintain a sustainable economy through the war, largely through subsistence methods. Today's global economy would not allow the United States to split in two without consequences. Freedom of movement between the states is crucial to all states' economies, especially for national/international corporations. What does a company like Wal★Mart do, only sell to the South because it's based there, or move out of the country altogether until the conflict is resolved? +10% of Federal revenue is derived from corporate tax (not to mention state corporate tax), this would be a major problem especially for Northern states where many of these corporations are based. Plus where do all the individuals whose incomes comes from corporations go? The rich corpie folks won't be getting much of an income anymore so there goes a lot of income tax. In fact there goes at least half our economy. I predict global depression if this were to happen tomorrow.

No no no. We could split into two. We would just out of economic necessity enact free trade and have the south join Nafta. Then get those 20 dollar passport cards and have free movement of people as long as they are transporting goods.
What we couldn't afford to do is fight a war about it.

The main benefit to the south is that they would get 65-75% of the military's equipment and trained personnel, with none of the debt the US ran up paying for it.

The main benefit to the north is they could have a single payer health care system in about 5 minutes. Given their per capita Debt has just doubled, so they might not able to afford it.

The thread is called "another Civil War," not "a peaceful secession movement and then signing of free trade agreements." An even more unlikely scenario that is.

I find it more likely. the blue states are tired of the Red states, and the red states would rather fight then pay for healthcare.
Seems like the best solution to the current issues at hand.
I am all for jsut as long as the blue states are the ones who become the successor state to the united states.

[Doichlogs]

Ya blue states... THAT'S YOU NORFOLK!

2008 Presidential race

[Anarchic-Marxist]

Have to go with the South on this one...I dont see the ICBM's being used, even in this scenario, MAD would make it rather pointless, and I dont see any politician suggesting their use...

Therefore, with California, Texas, and Florida all on the same page, and with all the military hardware housed on that side of the line, the North would simply be overwhelmed in this version...

Considering its utter pointlessness however, Im not sure any of it could be argued seriously, however, in a realistic scenario...

[Maurepas]

Have to go with the South on this one...I dont see the ICBM's being used, even in this scenario, MAD would make it rather pointless, and I dont see any politician suggesting their use...

Therefore, with California, Texas, and Florida all on the same page, and with all the military hardware housed on that side of the line, the North would simply be overwhelmed in this version...

Considering its utter pointlessness however, Im not sure any of it could be argued seriously, however, in a realistic scenario...

Just so we're clear, (its hard to tell if being sarcastic with just a smiley, ) California was South of the line in the original scenario...

I revised my position after it was moved, as aforementioned, California is the real kicker, imo, as to who's side was victorious...

[Anarchic-Marxist]

Have to go with the South on this one...I dont see the ICBM's being used, even in this scenario, MAD would make it rather pointless, and I dont see any politician suggesting their use...

Therefore, with California, Texas, and Florida all on the same page, and with all the military hardware housed on that side of the line, the North would simply be overwhelmed in this version...

Considering its utter pointlessness however, Im not sure any of it could be argued seriously, however, in a realistic scenario...

Just so we're clear, (its hard to tell if being sarcastic with just a smiley, ) California was South of the line in the original scenario...

I revised my position after it was moved, as aforementioned, California is the real kicker, imo, as to who's side was victorious...

im not being sarcastic but maybe its because i live in Texas

[The Romulan Republic]

If the south were only breaking away it would win.
Why ?
The industrial advantage the north has is not nearly as much as it was in 1860.
The population advantage of the North is also not nearly as great as it was in 1860.

I demand stats.

Lastly the North no longer has the will to fight a long drawn out war.

And you support this with what? Gut feeling?

Bear in mind that even in the South, not everyone will want to split (just like last time). Just because they have a lot of gun owners doesn't mean they're all living, breathing, war-making machines. And just because the North is more liberal does not mean its inhabitants are all a bunch of spineless pussies.

Remember, the north during the civil war had to suspend habous corpus and allow civilians to be tried by a military tribunal.
Bush tried that with foreigners not present in the US and we freaked out.

I doubt the North would have lost the war had it not done so.

But, I also have little doubt that a lot of rights would be tossed out by both sides in a civil war, if political hostilities in America ever reached that level in the first place. Such is the usual way of war, and part of why it should be avoided.

Next the North was willing to burn everything from Atlanta to Savannah, today we freak out and whine when some smart bombs accidentally kill a few children. Compare that to intentionally destroying the food supply for two major metropolitan areas today.

If the North is less ruthless than in the past, the same will hopefully be true for the South. Its not as if they were innocent of atrocities the last time around, by any means.

Also the South holding most of the naval base and a larger share of military personal. The union blockade would be reversed. The South would be blockading the North. In particular from Oil shipments, the South having Oklahoma, Texas and Alaska(weird to call Alaska the south) would also have stripped the US of most of its domestic production capabilities.

The first bit presumes that the Federal military decides its loyalties by state. If most of the navy opts to stay loyal (just because your state government secedes doesn't mean you agree, and many southerners will be serving on ships with Northern officers), its something of a moot point is it not?

As for the oil, if the North is the Internationally recognized state, they might be getting more of the international oil trade. Their are also other sources of energy, and while things might be hard for the north with some oil shortages, they could probably hold out for a while.

My prediction if this scenario happened the North would be starved out within 1 year. And the south would begrudgingly readmit the North as territories only.

No. I really don't think so.

At worst, they probably stay two sepperate nations, at least for a while. The south is not nessissarily going to "begrudgingly readmit the North," because the North is not nessissarily going to come crawling back begging for admitence. Especially not if the South was the side that seceded in the first place. And I doubt the South would have the means or the will to forcibly occupy the North on a long-term basis and make it rejoin.

I'm sorry, but with all due respect, this reads like some CSA apologist fantasy where the South gets its own back against the big bad North and makes them come crawling back begging to join the glorious Southern state. And of course the South will be blameless, and the North fully deserving of and willing to accept its status as "territories," presumably without the rights of statehood?

I suppose its possible, and I suppose its also possible that aliens will land in my yard in five minutes, but I doubt the North would be willing to rejoin what would most likely be a highly intolerant theocracy and arch-conservative nation of some sort. And don't try to say it wouldn't be.

Especially not if the Northern states were to be readmitted as "territories," without the rights of statehood.

[Buxtahatche]

I am all for jsut as long as the blue states are the ones who become the successor state to the united states.

Let them have the US, it's legacy and all the horrors that go with it.
I'd prefer to start afresh.

[City of Norfolk]

Ya blue states... THAT'S YOU NORFOLK!

2008 Presidential race

shut up...

[New Manvir]

At that point the Canadian Mechanized Moose Cavalry would rout both Union and Confederate Armies, beginning it's conquest of Earth

[Hawkryl]

Warner robins AFB is in GA, which is the only c-5 repair base, plus they have texas, so definitaly CSA.

[City of Norfolk]

I don't really support anything after 3:20, but this video does raise some good points-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teKllgeRR6E