Another American Civil War

[Heinleinites]

If they show up to the "hypothetical" battlefield with guns drawn and the intention of "putting some bullets into a bunch of Bible-thumping hypocritical anti-American traitorous shit-eating uneducated secessionist pro-slavery trash." they should "hypothetically" be leaving the battlefield in an oak box in my opinion.

If they're charging, then yeah, treat them the way the British were treated at the Battle of New Orleans. But if they're running away, let them go. All things being equal, shooting a man in the back is cowardly.

If they managed to "hypothetically" save themselves from the box they deserve to be locked up in a prison with similar conditions to Andersonville.

Andersonville goes too far. I'm not saying to give them five-star accomodations, they are prisoners of war after all, but deliberate starvation and ill treatment is not how the situation should be handled.

[Post-Unity Terra]

I can imagine the rest of the world just standing back and not touching that particular mess until it sorts itself out.

[Delator]

Based on critiques, I made a new hopefully more realistic balanced map-

Of the states listed on that map as "CSA", only two pay out more in taxes than they recieve in federal dollars (as of 2005), Colorado, and Texas (barely)...which leads me to wonder just how the CSA would pay for such a conflict.

Foreign financing is probably out, and I find it hard to believe the populace of the CSA would be eager to take a hit in their living standards through higher taxes/reduced services just to pay for a war.

The CSA would probably be forced to fight a defensive war...which is not only historically a bad idea, it would play right to the USAs strengths, enabling the heavy industry to retool to wartime production.

The CSA's biggest advantage lies in their ability to hamper shipping to east coast ports...but given the situation in the Pacific, I question whether it would really matter.

[Parthenon]

If they're charging, then yeah, treat them the way the British were treated at the Battle of New Orleans. But if they're running away, let them go. All things being equal, shooting a man in the back is cowardly. .

On the contrary, running from battle is cowardly. Letting soldiers go to fight another day is not smart militarily and is indicative of weakness in my mind. A battle's outcome should be so devastating that the enemy are too demoralized to continue.

Massacring prisoners would create martyrs, not something I am advocating. That would be extremely unwise given the conflict at hand as it would prolong it and serve as a means of recruitment. Inflicting further casualties on a retreating army in the outset of a battle is another matter altogether however, nothing more than a crushing blow to their numbers and their spirits.

[Post-Unity Terra]

I see you've put a ot of thought into this, eh Parthenon?

[Barringtonia]

On the contrary, running from battle is cowardly. Letting soldiers go to fight another day is not smart militarily and is indicative of weakness in my mind. A battle's outcome should be so devastating that the enemy would be too demoralized to continue. Massacring prisoners would create martyrs, not something I am advocating and would be extremely unwise. Inflicting further casualties on a retreating army is another matter altogether however, nothing more than a crushing blow to their numbers and their spirits.

I can't imagine how many battles have been won by running away, Ghengis Khan's entire battle strategy seemed to be to run away and then turn back on the chasing enemy, the Battle of Hastings was won this way, the Vietnamese only really failed when they tried to take on the enemy face on, otherwise they mostly ran away,

Chasing after an enemy can be a silly strategy because you risk breaking structure and breaking command orders,

Plenty of armies have also run from battle and re-grouped to fight successfully another way,

[Non Aligned States]

This entire thought experiment is moot anyhow. If things were to turn out in one or the other's favor dramatically, there is no question that nuclear weapons will be used, first as a defensive measure, and then increasingly as an offensive weapon to wipe out military concentrations and infrastructure. And both sides on this line have significant stockpiles, whether in silos, missile subs or conventionally delivered.

Both sides lose. End of story.

The only way to avoid that would be if both sides end up fighting a war of attrition that goes nowhere, thus pushing neither side up against the wall.

[City of Norfolk]

I don't know that I could hypothetically bring myself to shoot someone in the back while they were running away from a hypothetical battlefield. Something about it sticks in my craw.

If they show up to the "hypothetical" battlefield with guns drawn and the intention of "putting some bullets into a bunch of Bible-thumping hypocritical anti-American traitorous shit-eating uneducated secessionist pro-slavery trash." they should "hypothetically" be leaving the battlefield in an oak box in my opinion. If they managed to "hypothetically" save themselves from the box they deserve to be locked up in a prison with similar conditions to Andersonville.

Very true


And i was thinking, a South Against North is very unlikely to happen again, what would be more likely is 1 Idea against another, my friend and i once said if Another American Civil War Happened it would probably be Democrats against Republicans, or something similar, in which we both agreed The Republicans would win, but im getting off topic now.

I see a race war on the way instead of a real bordered civil war.

[City of Norfolk]

This entire thought experiment is moot anyhow. If things were to turn out in one or the other's favor dramatically, there is no question that nuclear weapons will be used, first as a defensive measure, and then increasingly as an offensive weapon to wipe out military concentrations and infrastructure. And both sides on this line have significant stockpiles, whether in silos, missile subs or conventionally delivered.

Both sides lose. End of story.

The only way to avoid that would be if both sides end up fighting a war of attrition that goes nowhere, thus pushing neither side up against the wall.

Do you really think the nation would nuke itself? I can't really see that happening.

[Parthenon]

On the contrary, running from battle is cowardly. Letting soldiers go to fight another day is not smart militarily and is indicative of weakness in my mind. A battle's outcome should be so devastating that the enemy would be too demoralized to continue. Massacring prisoners would create martyrs, not something I am advocating and would be extremely unwise. Inflicting further casualties on a retreating army is another matter altogether however, nothing more than a crushing blow to their numbers and their spirits.

I can't imagine how many battles have been won by running away, Ghengis Khan's entire battle strategy seemed to be to run away and then turn back on the chasing enemy, the Battle of Hastings was won this way, the Vietnamese only really failed when they tried to take on the enemy face on, otherwise they mostly ran away,

Chasing after an enemy can be a silly strategy because you risk breaking structure and breaking command orders,

Plenty of armies have also run from battle and re-grouped to fight successfully another way,

Not comparable given the weapon difference. Even so, I am not advocating a chase, merely advocating that the guns don't stop until the enemy is out of range.

[Spriegelburg]

The side with nukes could always set them off in low orbit above their enemies, though not to high to damage themselves. A nuke set off high up will ruin the electric grid of everything in line of sight. Since it would have probably been destroyed anyway, the side with the nukes would see no problem in knocking it out to gain victory. Look up EMP. Also, about the South having more gun owners, they probably do, but I don't think it will matter because most of them are no where near what they were during the civil war, and they had inferior firearms compared to ours. Though I'm reminded, has anyone checked where most the powerplants are and how the grid is set up? That might be nice to know. i'd also like to know where the coal plants are and which side controls the coal mines.

[Ardchoille]

Phenia, Maurepas, Parthenon, in case you missed it,

[Heinleinites]

You know what I think is interesting, if we can move past the same tired U.S.A/C.S.A debate? Almost every alternate history that I've read involving the Balkanization of the U.S., from Friday to Prayers for the Assassin mentions Nevada as being some kind of neutral territory or "Free State." It's oddly coincidental that that is such a constant.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

The moderation matter is settled. That thread is locked now.

But I want to make a point about the possible role of what the OP did in causing the trouble which brought this thread to the unwelcoming eye of Ardchoille.

Please note that I am not disputing moderation, nor trying to reboot the squabbling which occurred there.

Parthenon: when you originated the discussion by stating intentions to kill anyone from the south

I never said that, which you really ought to know since you quoted me in the above post right there.

When there is a map given in the thread that has a split based on geographical regions (North and South) and you indicate that you would join in an attempt to shoot those in the CSA (labeled as south on the map) with some nonsensical rude slurs thrown in for no reason it certainly reads like that...

It was labeled on the map as CSA. Here, this is the image:



I have no problems whatsoever using "slurs" against the CSA... or any hypothetical revival of that organization. I'm done arguing now, thanks.

Phenia is not looking at the original map. He's looking at the revised map, which far more closely resembles the divisions of the FIRST Civil War.

It's not the map which was in the first post (which included California) when Ideam posted. The map was changed five minutes before this post.

Wilgrove's post has the link intact from when Wilgrove quoted the OP. Here is the original map:



Phenia's reply was to this:

South... not counting allies. 1st reason California and the other leftist states are a bunch of pussies who would try to talk their way out.
*snip*

The map in the OP at that time was the one linked to in Wilgrove's post. At the time of Phenia's reply, it was the later version of the map.

The "new" CSA is quite conceivably real posters living in those states. The "old" CSA is more like a historical map, with the people who lived there long since dead.

The OP changing the scenario in the OP, without any note there that it had changed, was partly responsible for the conflict which ensued at about the same time.

I suggest to City of Norfolk that changing the scenario part-way through was a bad idea.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

You know what I think is interesting, if we can move past the same tired U.S.A/C.S.A debate? Almost every alternate history that I've read involving the Balkanization of the U.S., from Friday to Prayers for the Assassin mentions Nevada as being some kind of neutral territory or "Free State." It's oddly coincidental that that is such a constant.

I'm not sure "Balkanization" is an apt term. That really refers to an existing country being divided by outside forces to weaken it. Secession isn't that.

If a sufficient number of states (with enough clout between them) wanted to secede together, I'm sure it could be arranged without much fighting at all. They might be denied any share of the armed forces and have to build from scratch, or they might simply be denied the nuclear weapons stationed there (as happened with the smaller states of the USSR when it de-federated.)

As to the Nevada thing ... no one wants it ?

[Holy Marsh]

South/North is boring, it really is. But looking at this map, I'd say that neither side could crack the other with conventional force. Neither side would win...but the CSA would stand a fair chance of finishing off the USA 1v1 if we just did a blank, "100% of the people in the states on either side were with their states' decision". Not due to manpower, but because overall total manpower is not too overwhelming while at the same time a relative parity of military force is achieved. Same thing goes to the USA.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

South/North is boring, it really is.

Perhaps East and West would have been more fun.

[Holy Marsh]

South/North is boring, it really is.

Perhaps East and West would have been more fun.

Perhaps, yeah. But I would personally prefer a four or more sided one, just because then...well, just because.

[Sibirsky]

This entire thought experiment is moot anyhow. If things were to turn out in one or the other's favor dramatically, there is no question that nuclear weapons will be used, first as a defensive measure, and then increasingly as an offensive weapon to wipe out military concentrations and infrastructure. And both sides on this line have significant stockpiles, whether in silos, missile subs or conventionally delivered.

Both sides lose. End of story.

The only way to avoid that would be if both sides end up fighting a war of attrition that goes nowhere, thus pushing neither side up against the wall.

There is absolutely no question, that even if only one side had nuclear weapons they would not be used. Using nukes on a neighbor so close to you is suicide.

[Surpsainia]

South/North is boring, it really is.

Perhaps East and West would have been more fun.

Perhaps, yeah. But I would personally prefer a four or more sided one, just because then...well, just because.

A battle royal between all the states! The last state standing gets to name one of its city as the new capitol

[Holy Marsh]

I'd be down with that.XD I'd side with Washington(state), because I grew up there. But there is Wyoming, the worst state in the union. Spent time there, years I want bac. The mighty tumbleweeds and feelings of loneliness and depression are powerful weapons they will wield well. But my new state, California, would fare quite nicely as well.

[Yootopia]

The North, because it has the bits anyone foreign cares about in it. If the CSA attacked the NYSE, arse would be kicked.

[Doichlogs]

The map in the OP at that time was the one linked to in Wilgrove's post. At the time of Phenia's reply, it was the later version of the map.

The "new" CSA is quite conceivably real posters living in those states. The "old" CSA is more like a historical map, with the people who lived there long since dead.

The OP changing the scenario in the OP, without any note there that it had changed, was partly responsible for the conflict which ensued at about the same time.

I suggest to City of Norfolk that changing the scenario part-way through was a bad idea.

He did make a note. It's also in the opening post that it changed. Not Norfolk's fault some people just aren't paying attention.

[Holy Marsh]

The North, because it has the bits anyone foreign cares about in it. If the CSA attacked the NYSE, arse would be kicked.

The NYSE has already attacked itself quite well enough, the CSA wouldn't need to do anything.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

*snipamid*

Perhaps East and West would have been more fun.

Perhaps, yeah. But I would personally prefer a four or more sided one, just because then...well, just because.

A battle royal between all the states! The last state standing gets to name one of its city as the new capitol

"Whew, that was close. May this radioactive pile of rubble be known for ever more as Victoria.

Wait, what's that over there? New Canada City you say? Do we have any nukes left?"