Texas secessionists launch petition drive

[Ancient Republics]

Didn't the Civil War teach us anything!

No, not really.

[Irona]

Isn't it against american ideals of freedom and democracy to force states to remain in the union? A lot of Americans are pro-independance for a lot of minority's around the world but when it comes to their own country they claim it's treason? I understand the majority of people in states like texas want to remain in the union but to just dismiss any talk of secession as treason seems anti-freedom. The same thing with the pledge of allegiance, for somebody from the UK it looks like brainwashing children

[American Imperial Union]

Yes; nuclear weapons are a lie. They're impossible to get a hold of, infact they're nonexistent and fictional. At first, it was said that they do not exist in the territory of Texas;then it was said that only a dismantling facility remains in the second largest state; and now it's that it will be scuttled on the event of capture. I suspect that those nuclear crews, who are of such great refute in the air force, by the way, will not dismantle those nuclear weapons. At least not all of them. I'm sure those plans deal with invading conventional forces, not armed large scale rebellion.

I would put forth that anything of which there is even the slightest of doubt about the possiblity of a rebel victory is flaunted as an mere further proof by those opposed to secession of it's impossibility. But improbability is not impossibility. All it takes is one nuclear weapon and a delivery system to pop your unionists bubble.and the more seceding states the Rosier the picture...

If I may note, if American independence were put to a vote in 1776 it may have very well lost in the face of loyalists and apathists. And they would have hung those traitors, of which we are all familiar.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Yes; nuclear weapons are a lie. They're impossible to get a hold of, infact they're nonexistent and fictional. At first, it was said that they do not exist in the territory of Texas;then it was said that only a dismantling facility remains in the second largest state; and now it's that it will be scuttled on the event of capture. I suspect that those nuclear crews, who are of such great refute in the air force, by the way, will not dismantle those nuclear weapons. At least not all of them. I'm sure those plans deal with invading conventional forces, not armed large scale rebellion.

I would put forth that anything of which there is even the slightest of doubt about the possiblity of a rebel victory is flaunted as an mere further proof by those opposed to secession of it's impossibility. But improbability is not impossibility. All it takes is one nuclear weapon and a delivery system to pop your unionists bubble.and the more seceding states the Rosier the picture...

If I may note, if American independence were put to a vote in 1776 it may have very well lost in the face of loyalists and apathists. And they would have hung those traitors, of which we are all familiar.

And if you look, alot of the people who fought for Americas independance then would be called terrorists now.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Isn't it against american ideals of freedom and democracy to force states to remain in the union?

No, not really. After all, we aren't forcing them to, and they were the ones that came begging us to take them in.

A lot of Americans are pro-independance for a lot of minority's around the world but when it comes to their own country they claim it's treason?

We have a soft spot for oppressed minorities, not dipshits who are just bitchy they aren't getting their way.

I understand the majority of people in states like texas want to remain in the union but to just dismiss any talk of secession as treason seems anti-freedom.

Only, it is, technically treason, in the same way the IRA in Northern Ireland is treasonous (although, it is slightly disanalogous in that our texans have a lot less bombs- they make up for it in their guns).

The same thing with the pledge of allegiance, for somebody from the UK it looks like brainwashing children

If that person from the UK is an idiot.

[USS Monitor]

Yes; nuclear weapons are a lie. They're impossible to get a hold of, infact they're nonexistent and fictional. At first, it was said that they do not exist in the territory of Texas;then it was said that only a dismantling facility remains in the second largest state; and now it's that it will be scuttled on the event of capture. I suspect that those nuclear crews, who are of such great refute in the air force, by the way, will not dismantle those nuclear weapons. At least not all of them. I'm sure those plans deal with invading conventional forces, not armed large scale rebellion.

I would put forth that anything of which there is even the slightest of doubt about the possiblity of a rebel victory is flaunted as an mere further proof by those opposed to secession of it's impossibility. But improbability is not impossibility. All it takes is one nuclear weapon and a delivery system to pop your unionists bubble.and the more seceding states the Rosier the picture...

If I may note, if American independence were put to a vote in 1776 it may have very well lost in the face of loyalists and apathists. And they would have hung those traitors, of which we are all familiar.

What part of the Union nuking Texas back in retaliation do you not get? One nuke is not enough to defeat the Union. It is enough to make the Union hellbent on destroying you.

Why are you so stubborn in arguing this crap?

And no, I'm not arguing against you from some kind of nationalistic "states can't secede" mentality. I'm a New England secessionist. I'm just telling you you're wrong because you're actually wrong.

[New England and Virginia]

I feel like I wasted my time writing my criticism of people opposed to Texas secession, since no one seems to be replying to it.

Fuck...

I can answer that question pretty easily. Currently the people of Texas do not want to secede. Even if that were not the case, the US has an obligation to the US citizens who wish to remain part of the US, even if they were more of a minority. More then that, considering that Texas has military bases and the such there, the US has an obligation to defend those bases to ensure they do not fall into the hands of those who are not art of the US.

I stated my critiques only apply in the case when secession is done with the consent of the Texans.

However, I'm opposed to secession myself.

[Imperializt Russia]

Yes; nuclear weapons are a lie. They're impossible to get a hold of, infact they're nonexistent and fictional. At first, it was said that they do not exist in the territory of Texas;then it was said that only a dismantling facility remains in the second largest state; and now it's that it will be scuttled on the event of capture. I suspect that those nuclear crews, who are of such great refute in the air force, by the way, will not dismantle those nuclear weapons. At least not all of them. I'm sure those plans deal with invading conventional forces, not armed large scale rebellion.

I would put forth that anything of which there is even the slightest of doubt about the possiblity of a rebel victory is flaunted as an mere further proof by those opposed to secession of it's impossibility. But improbability is not impossibility. All it takes is one nuclear weapon and a delivery system to pop your unionists bubble.and the more seceding states the Rosier the picture...

If I may note, if American independence were put to a vote in 1776 it may have very well lost in the face of loyalists and apathists. And they would have hung those traitors, of which we are all familiar.

It's generally healthier to masturbate on pornhub than power fantasies.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Yes; nuclear weapons are a lie. They're impossible to get a hold of, infact they're nonexistent and fictional. At first, it was said that they do not exist in the territory of Texas;then it was said that only a dismantling facility remains in the second largest state; and now it's that it will be scuttled on the event of capture. I suspect that those nuclear crews, who are of such great refute in the air force, by the way, will not dismantle those nuclear weapons. At least not all of them. I'm sure those plans deal with invading conventional forces, not armed large scale rebellion.

I would put forth that anything of which there is even the slightest of doubt about the possiblity of a rebel victory is flaunted as an mere further proof by those opposed to secession of it's impossibility. But improbability is not impossibility. All it takes is one nuclear weapon and a delivery system to pop your unionists bubble.and the more seceding states the Rosier the picture...

If I may note, if American independence were put to a vote in 1776 it may have very well lost in the face of loyalists and apathists. And they would have hung those traitors, of which we are all familiar.

It's generally healthier to masturbate on pornhub than power fantasies.

I don't know, power fantasies involve more harems

[American Imperial Union]

Yes; nuclear weapons are a lie. They're impossible to get a hold of, infact they're nonexistent and fictional. At first, it was said that they do not exist in the territory of Texas;then it was said that only a dismantling facility remains in the second largest state; and now it's that it will be scuttled on the event of capture. I suspect that those nuclear crews, who are of such great refute in the air force, by the way, will not dismantle those nuclear weapons. At least not all of them. I'm sure those plans deal with invading conventional forces, not armed large scale rebellion.

I would put forth that anything of which there is even the slightest of doubt about the possiblity of a rebel victory is flaunted as an mere further proof by those opposed to secession of it's impossibility. But improbability is not impossibility. All it takes is one nuclear weapon and a delivery system to pop your unionists bubble.and the more seceding states the Rosier the picture...

If I may note, if American independence were put to a vote in 1776 it may have very well lost in the face of loyalists and apathists. And they would have hung those traitors, of which we are all familiar.

What part of the Union nuking Texas back in retaliation do you not get? One nuke is not enough to defeat the Union. It is enough to make the Union hellbent on destroying you.

Why are you so stubborn in arguing this crap?

And no, I'm not arguing against you from some kind of nationalistic "states can't secede" mentality. I'm a New England secessionist. I'm just telling you you're wrong because you're actually wrong.

Because the United states will not risk invading Texas if it has nukes rendering the use of them unnecessary.

If the federal government argues that Texas is still legally part of the Union, its going to be hard to justify a retaliatory nuking of what you consider your own territory just because a couple "rebels" or "terrorists" or whatever BS the government uses, got some nukes. You really think they would nuke Austin or Houston in retaliation? Plus any retaliation would screw over the whole continent. Good luck trying to get Texas back into the Union after you just nuked millions of Texans endearing that state's people to your unionist cause.

[USS Monitor]

Yes; nuclear weapons are a lie. They're impossible to get a hold of, infact they're nonexistent and fictional. At first, it was said that they do not exist in the territory of Texas;then it was said that only a dismantling facility remains in the second largest state; and now it's that it will be scuttled on the event of capture. I suspect that those nuclear crews, who are of such great refute in the air force, by the way, will not dismantle those nuclear weapons. At least not all of them. I'm sure those plans deal with invading conventional forces, not armed large scale rebellion.

I would put forth that anything of which there is even the slightest of doubt about the possiblity of a rebel victory is flaunted as an mere further proof by those opposed to secession of it's impossibility. But improbability is not impossibility. All it takes is one nuclear weapon and a delivery system to pop your unionists bubble.and the more seceding states the Rosier the picture...

If I may note, if American independence were put to a vote in 1776 it may have very well lost in the face of loyalists and apathists. And they would have hung those traitors, of which we are all familiar.

It's generally healthier to masturbate on pornhub than power fantasies.

I prefer if people masturbate in private rather than on a public forum, no matter what they masturbate to.

[Neutraligon]

I can answer that question pretty easily. Currently the people of Texas do not want to secede. Even if that were not the case, the US has an obligation to the US citizens who wish to remain part of the US, even if they were more of a minority. More then that, considering that Texas has military bases and the such there, the US has an obligation to defend those bases to ensure they do not fall into the hands of those who are not art of the US.

I stated my critiques only apply in the case when secession is done with the consent of the Texans.

However, I'm opposed to secession myself.

I mentioned why even if that were not the case.

[New England and Virginia]

I stated my critiques only apply in the case when secession is done with the consent of the Texans.

However, I'm opposed to secession myself.

I mentioned why even if that were not the case.

But let's again consider the situation in the former Soviet Union. Kazakhstan peacefully handed over all former Soviet military equipment to Russia (indeed, for a brief period after the fall of the USSR, Kazakhstan was the world's third largest nuclear power).

Couldn't the same apply to Texas?

[Ifreann]

Isn't it against american ideals of freedom and democracy to force states to remain in the union?

States aren't forced to remain in the union. States aren't allowed to unilaterally secede.

A lot of Americans are pro-independance for a lot of minority's around the world but when it comes to their own country they claim it's treason?

It would be treason to attack the US in an attempt to secede by force, given that there is a functioning democracy in place.

---

Yes; nuclear weapons are a lie. They're impossible to get a hold of, infact they're nonexistent and fictional. At first, it was said that they do not exist in the territory of Texas;then it was said that only a dismantling facility remains in the second largest state; and now it's that it will be scuttled on the event of capture.

To scuttle is to deliberately sink one's own sea vessel. It only really applies to sea vessels. Or something that one could metaphorically sink.

I suspect that those nuclear crews, who are of such great refute in the air force, by the way, will not dismantle those nuclear weapons.

On what basis do you suspect this? You keep making all kinds of assumptions that end up with a rebel government in Texas armed with nuclear weapons. It's well past obvious that you will assume anything if it ends with Texas pointing nukes at the US.

At least not all of them. I'm sure those plans deal with invading conventional forces, not armed large scale rebellion.

What's the difference? Dudes with guns coming for the base is dudes with guns coming for the base.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Well Iffy, to be fair, insurgents are very diffrent from militaries. Different security measures.

[North Arkana]

Yes; nuclear weapons are a lie. They're impossible to get a hold of, infact they're nonexistent and fictional. At first, it was said that they do not exist in the territory of Texas;then it was said that only a dismantling facility remains in the second largest state; and now it's that it will be scuttled on the event of capture. I suspect that those nuclear crews, who are of such great refute in the air force, by the way, will not dismantle those nuclear weapons. At least not all of them. I'm sure those plans deal with invading conventional forces, not armed large scale rebellion.

I would put forth that anything of which there is even the slightest of doubt about the possiblity of a rebel victory is flaunted as an mere further proof by those opposed to secession of it's impossibility. But improbability is not impossibility. All it takes is one nuclear weapon and a delivery system to pop your unionists bubble.and the more seceding states the Rosier the picture...

If I may note, if American independence were put to a vote in 1776 it may have very well lost in the face of loyalists and apathists. And they would have hung those traitors, of which we are all familiar.

And it only takes one bullet from a SEAL Sniper to end a speratist plotter's life.

[New England and Virginia]

Yes; nuclear weapons are a lie. They're impossible to get a hold of, infact they're nonexistent and fictional. At first, it was said that they do not exist in the territory of Texas;then it was said that only a dismantling facility remains in the second largest state; and now it's that it will be scuttled on the event of capture. I suspect that those nuclear crews, who are of such great refute in the air force, by the way, will not dismantle those nuclear weapons. At least not all of them. I'm sure those plans deal with invading conventional forces, not armed large scale rebellion.

I would put forth that anything of which there is even the slightest of doubt about the possiblity of a rebel victory is flaunted as an mere further proof by those opposed to secession of it's impossibility. But improbability is not impossibility. All it takes is one nuclear weapon and a delivery system to pop your unionists bubble.and the more seceding states the Rosier the picture...

If I may note, if American independence were put to a vote in 1776 it may have very well lost in the face of loyalists and apathists. And they would have hung those traitors, of which we are all familiar.

And it only takes one bullet from a SEAL Sniper to end a speratist plotter's life.

OVER 300 CONFIRMED KILLS

[Ifreann]

What part of the Union nuking Texas back in retaliation do you not get? One nuke is not enough to defeat the Union. It is enough to make the Union hellbent on destroying you.

Why are you so stubborn in arguing this crap?

And no, I'm not arguing against you from some kind of nationalistic "states can't secede" mentality. I'm a New England secessionist. I'm just telling you you're wrong because you're actually wrong.

Because the United states will not risk invading Texas if it has nukes rendering the use of them unnecessary.

If Texan rebels can capture a nuclear weapon then why could the US not just capture them back?

[Mefpan]

What part of the Union nuking Texas back in retaliation do you not get? One nuke is not enough to defeat the Union. It is enough to make the Union hellbent on destroying you.

Why are you so stubborn in arguing this crap?

And no, I'm not arguing against you from some kind of nationalistic "states can't secede" mentality. I'm a New England secessionist. I'm just telling you you're wrong because you're actually wrong.

Because the United states will not risk invading Texas if it has nukes rendering the use of them unnecessary.

If the federal government argues that Texas is still legally part of the Union, its going to be hard to justify a retaliatory nuking of what you consider your own territory just because a couple "rebels" or "terrorists" or whatever BS the government uses, got some nukes. You really think they would nuke Austin or Houston in retaliation? Plus any retaliation would screw over the whole continent. Good luck trying to get Texas back into the Union after you just nuked millions of Texans endearing that state's people to your unionist cause.

If secessionists are morally bankrupt enough to consider vaporizing their fellow countrymen for a simple power grab because they can't legally discriminate against a group of people anymore then I must seriously question whether or not such people should be allowed their own state. The shittiness of the hypothetical post-war occupation of Texas likely rises exponentially with the number of weapons of mass destruction you'd have Texas use to slaughter civilians in an ill-conceived attempt to regain the ability to kick around homosexuals legally, but the nature of the outcome will not change.

...and besides, retaliatory strikes would be against military targets, obviously.

Because the United states will not risk invading Texas if it has nukes rendering the use of them unnecessary.

If Texan rebels can capture a nuclear weapon then why could the US not just capture them back?

Obvious. The South has the secret powers of alternatehistorywank and what they don't want you to know is that it took Yankee time travellers with rayguns to destroy the Confederacy all the way back. But this time Texas knows. Oh yes, Texas knows and Texas is prepared for all the time travellers. All of them.

[North Arkana]

And it only takes one bullet from a SEAL Sniper to end a speratist plotter's life.

OVER 300 CONFIRMED KILLS

Nah, I just sit behind a desk and make sure the paperwork gets done. Though if things did go bad I'd probably be assigned to put together targeting packets on the rebels or something.

[Irona]

Isn't it against american ideals of freedom and democracy to force states to remain in the union?

States aren't forced to remain in the union. States aren't allowed to unilaterally secede.

A lot of Americans are pro-independance for a lot of minority's around the world but when it comes to their own country they claim it's treason?

It would be treason to attack the US in an attempt to secede by force, given that there is a functioning democracy in place.

---

1) If states cannot secede then isn't that the same as forcing them to remain in the union?
2) From what i've seen in this thread many people think that just having a vote to secede is treason

[American Imperial Union]

I'm not saying Texas will manage it, only that its a possibility that is being too easily dismissed. Also, it would be dumb not to be launch ready for the whole period of secession in case of attempted recapture.

And a navy seal can end a Taliban plotters life too, but the insurgency lives on.

Also, Russian weapons assistance. Not saying it would happen, but it would be nice political retaliation for Ukraine.

[USS Monitor]

What part of the Union nuking Texas back in retaliation do you not get? One nuke is not enough to defeat the Union. It is enough to make the Union hellbent on destroying you.

Why are you so stubborn in arguing this crap?

And no, I'm not arguing against you from some kind of nationalistic "states can't secede" mentality. I'm a New England secessionist. I'm just telling you you're wrong because you're actually wrong.

Because the United states will not risk invading Texas if it has nukes rendering the use of them unnecessary.

If Texas is threatening us with nukes, it's not safe to have them on our borders and we have to do something about it.

If the federal government argues that Texas is still legally part of the Union, its going to be hard to justify a retaliatory nuking of what you consider your own territory just because a couple "rebels" or "terrorists" or whatever BS the government uses, got some nukes. You really think they would nuke Austin or Houston in retaliation? Plus any retaliation would screw over the whole continent. Good luck trying to get Texas back into the Union after you just nuked millions of Texans endearing that state's people to your unionist cause.

That's why General Sherman was totally hated in the North and overseas -- definitely not applauded as a war hero or anything -- and why we never got Georgia back in the Union.

Sorry, but if Texas uses nukes, it's pretty fucking easy to justify responding in kind. And anyone that doesn't want to come back to the Union after starting a nuclear civil war can just be killed off or chucked in prison. They won't get any sympathy after they started a nuclear war.

Texas' best shot at independence is to keep their hands off the Union's nukes and just negotiate peacefully so they look civilized and get sympathy from people in other states and overseas.

[Heraklea-]

Yes; nuclear weapons are a lie. They're impossible to get a hold of, infact they're nonexistent and fictional. At first, it was said that they do not exist in the territory of Texas;then it was said that only a dismantling facility remains in the second largest state; and now it's that it will be scuttled on the event of capture. I suspect that those nuclear crews, who are of such great refute in the air force, by the way, will not dismantle those nuclear weapons. At least not all of them. I'm sure those plans deal with invading conventional forces, not armed large scale rebellion.

I would put forth that anything of which there is even the slightest of doubt about the possiblity of a rebel victory is flaunted as an mere further proof by those opposed to secession of it's impossibility. But improbability is not impossibility. All it takes is one nuclear weapon and a delivery system to pop your unionists bubble.and the more seceding states the Rosier the picture...

If I may note, if American independence were put to a vote in 1776 it may have very well lost in the face of loyalists and apathists. And they would have hung those traitors, of which we are all familiar.

Plans for nuclear weapons destruction to prevent their loss cover any and every scenario except possibly alien invasion. In the case of an armed insurrection that looks like it would gain access to nuclear weapons, the custodians of the weapons have procedures for dismantling and destroying the weapons such that they are rendered unusable as a nuclear weapon. Access to nuclear weapons is tightly controlled and anyone with access or who is charged with their security is thoroughly investigated and closely monitored.

Because the United states will not risk invading Texas if it has nukes rendering the use of them unnecessary.

If the federal government argues that Texas is still legally part of the Union, its going to be hard to justify a retaliatory nuking of what you consider your own territory just because a couple "rebels" or "terrorists" or whatever BS the government uses, got some nukes. You really think they would nuke Austin or Houston in retaliation? Plus any retaliation would screw over the whole continent. Good luck trying to get Texas back into the Union after you just nuked millions of Texans endearing that state's people to your unionist cause.

After a conflict goes nuclear, that's it. If a secessionist Texas hits somewhere else in the US with a nuke, Texas is gone. There's no reintegrating Texas, it's going to be a nuclear wasteland. If, in the extreme hypothetical, a secessionist Texas had a nuke they could use, then the US would probably not invade. They'd destroy Texas economically. And then reclaim the failed state and reintegrate it.

[New England and Virginia]

>come for intellectual debate on Texas secession
>get stupid shit about nukes