Another American Civil War

[Yootopia]

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.

Hurr hurr.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I think the north may have a stealth advantage due to its speed of the advancement, honoured player of the City of Norfolk.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

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.

I meant a note in the OP. In big letters. And probably a link to the old map, so the first page and a half of posts could be taken in context, and not replied to OUT OF CONTEXT.

Changing the map on a scenario is a BIG change. It's not just fixing a typo.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

I think the north may have a stealth advantage due to its speed of the advancement, honoured player of the City of Norfolk.

Let me say I too respect City of Norfolk. Good poster.

But if moving the goalposts halfway through a scenario is standard practice on the role-playing forums, excuse me for not being interested.

[Doichlogs]

I meant a note in the OP. In big letters. And probably a link to the old map, so the first page and a half of posts could be taken in context, and not replied to OUT OF CONTEXT.

Changing the map on a scenario is a BIG change. It's not just fixing a typo.

I came into this thread after the map change, and I noticed pretty quickly that their had been a change. People need to at least skim the thread before they post, it's only 3 pages and the posts are pretty short. But obviously he should have made it lazy-proof...



Who wins?
Russia.

[Non Aligned States]

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

There hasn't been a real fight to the death between nuclear powers before. Even the conflicts between Pakistan and India were low key border clashes. Nobody really made any real drives to conquer the country.

In a civil war, all bets are off. And given how the last American civil war played out, why should anyone believe that they wouldn't go all out?

Come to think of it, what are the objectives of either side anyway? The op doesn't say.

[Buffett and Colbert]

China. China always wins.

[Holy Marsh]

Both sides would have nuclear weapons. It is my belief that if one side was prepared to use it, it would be in a scenario in which they were almost defeated and would use it to sue for an 'honorable' defeat.

[Non Aligned States]

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.

Between hurting yourself to destroy the enemy and being destroyed by the enemy, most would pick the former. Besides, the ones pushing the buttons will be sitting in a reinforced bunker deep in some mountain complex.

[Surpsainia]

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.

Between hurting yourself to destroy the enemy and being destroyed by the enemy, most would pick the former. Besides, the ones pushing the buttons will be sitting in a reinforced bunker deep in some mountain complex.

Which is in Colorado. Does not bode well for the north

[Sorgan]

I'm pretty sure Rhode Island/Pennsylvania would be neutral, well depending on the reason.

[Sorgan]

Mongolia.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

I meant a note in the OP. In big letters. And probably a link to the old map, so the first page and a half of posts could be taken in context, and not replied to OUT OF CONTEXT.

Changing the map on a scenario is a BIG change. It's not just fixing a typo.

I came into this thread after the map change, and I noticed pretty quickly that their had been a change.

If no-one had posted a reply with the original map in, though ... you wouldn't know what the change had been.

People need to at least skim the thread before they post, it's only 3 pages and the posts are pretty short. But obviously he should have made it lazy-proof...

Actually, I would say he* should have made it lazy-proof. Generalites don't look out for changes like that, it's more a roleplaying thing I think. Some of us role-play nations, but a whole lot of us just stay in General, and here, significantly changing the content of previous posts is very bad form once others have replied to the original. If you retract an opinion, and get tired of responding to the same criticism: make the retraction UNMISTAKEABLE and leave the original visible.

Ie, more a debate thing. It would be nice if the forum allowed for seeing the pre-edit version of any edited post ... the info is still there, 'cos mods can see it.

Just about anything can be taken too seriously in General. We're nutty I guess.


*I'll take your word for that, since you're both in ICN so probably know each other better than I do either of you. Normally, I don't assume gender unless I've wred an explicit claim to such.

[Tekania]

Between hurting yourself to destroy the enemy and being destroyed by the enemy, most would pick the former. Besides, the ones pushing the buttons will be sitting in a reinforced bunker deep in some mountain complex.

Which is in Colorado. Does not bode well for the north

Well, that's where the core complex is, but not all the weapons... In this case the "North" states on the map will be in trouble in a nuclear conflict... To highlight... It's not an issue where the core complex is, but WHO has the missiles/bombs...

The western States have pretty much ALL of the in-ground silos, a good chunk of the airborne bombers, with the rest of the airborn bombers in Texas.... The Western states also have 1/2 of the at-sea nuclear arsenal, with the other 1/2 in control of the South-Eastern US.... The North-Eastern states, actually, have little strategic nukes, and only a handfull of tactical nukes in Connecticut...

[Greed and Death]

It is worth pointing out the largest Tank base is in Texas. Despite the large # of army bases in the north the ones in the south tend to be large in size.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

Between hurting yourself to destroy the enemy and being destroyed by the enemy, most would pick the former. Besides, the ones pushing the buttons will be sitting in a reinforced bunker deep in some mountain complex.

Which is in Colorado. Does not bode well for the north

Well, that's where the core complex is, but not all the weapons... In this case the "North" states on the map will be in trouble in a nuclear conflict... To highlight... It's not an issue where the core complex is, but WHO has the missiles/bombs...

Another assumption that has to be made, for the scenario to play out.

There are surely a lot of safeguards to nuclear weapons, to prevent Dr Strangelove* scenarios where the staff at the launch site take matters into their own hands.

Yes, they could bodgy up some alternative guidance system so they're not trusting the black box in the missiles to do what they tell the missile to do. But it would take a while, not just a matter of putting a boyscout compass and a clock in there.

Their missiles (or bombs for that matter) might just not go off. They might redeploy to some safe area (in the case of missiles: as high as they can get) and detonate. Or if the designers have really thought through the consequences of a wildcat first strike: detonate right after launch. Or detonate at a signal from a "weatherstation" near the airfield, in the case of aircraft-delivered nukes.

And just as in the Cold War ... the subs get the last word. Who gets the subs, hmm?

I'm gonna get pwned by Greed and Death. But hey, I'm trying to play along. Don't know nuttin' really, I'm more a flowers and unicorns kinda poster.

*Edit: and credit to Fail Safe, not a great book but worth noting for being a major target of the mockery of Dr Strangelove. Better ending, too.

[Non Aligned States]

Well, that's where the core complex is, but not all the weapons... In this case the "North" states on the map will be in trouble in a nuclear conflict... To highlight... It's not an issue where the core complex is, but WHO has the missiles/bombs...

The western States have pretty much ALL of the in-ground silos, a good chunk of the airborne bombers, with the rest of the airborn bombers in Texas.... The Western states also have 1/2 of the at-sea nuclear arsenal, with the other 1/2 in control of the South-Eastern US.... The North-Eastern states, actually, have little strategic nukes, and only a handfull of tactical nukes in Connecticut...

If we're factoring in existing safeguards though, that puts all strategic nukes in the hands of whoever has the nuclear football and the access codes to them. The only ones not immediately secured for presidential authorization would be tactical weapons mounted on bombers and artillery shells. That puts a premium on whoever has that authority to nuke the other side's silos and arsenals to kingdom come on the outset of hostilities in order to prevent them from doing the same before they manage to reconfigure their strategic weapons.

[City of Norfolk]

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.

that maybe be my fault, but the original debate between myself and my friend was, "what if the U.S. was split right down the middle? Who would win?" And after many critiques of the map, I decided to give Nevada and California to the U.S. seeing that more realistic.

[City of Norfolk]

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.

I meant a note in the OP. In big letters. And probably a link to the old map, so the first page and a half of posts could be taken in context, and not replied to OUT OF CONTEXT.

Changing the map on a scenario is a BIG change. It's not just fixing a typo.

It wouldn't matter, they were flaming each other over ideological issues, not the map, though I understand where your coming from.

[Grays Harbor]

The revamped CSA would win, hands down.

Why?

Because there is a much larger percentage of "Give peace a chance", "Peace at any price" and "War is never the answer" folk living in New England, New York, Washington State and California than in the entire South combined.

[Frasas]

Well the USA would beat the CSA in this map in terms of population, manufacturing centers, and business centers. Basically, the USA would destroy the CSA because it has California (population), Pennsyalvania & West Virginia (coal/energy production), New York City (business capital of the world), and Detroit (manufacturing capital of the US {or at least used to be}).

[City of Norfolk]

Remember the many serviceman who were raised in the South, how many of them would leave the bases and head for Dixie?

[Frasas]

Remember the many serviceman who were raised in the South, how many of them would leave the bases and head for Dixie?

True, but the same exact thing happened in the real one too. The North had superior money, population (non-military), transportation, and business/manufacturing centers.

[Grays Harbor]

Remember the many serviceman who were raised in the South, how many of them would leave the bases and head for Dixie?

Just going from my own experiences in the army here, but a significant majority of the combat arms (Infantry, Armor, Artillery) personnel are from the southern states. The first Battalion I was in after I got my commission, for example, of the 41 Officers assigned, 37 were from Southern States.

[City of Norfolk]

Alright, so if the CSA were to return, would they use the old flag? Or would they institute a new one?