NATION

PASSWORD

What if a liberal vs conservative civil war broke out in USA

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Who do you think would win?

Conservatives
251
71%
Liberals
103
29%
 
Total votes : 354

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 126986
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Democratic Socialists

Postby Ifreann » Sun May 07, 2017 5:33 pm

Torrocca wrote:
Ifreann wrote:You know that supplies can come from outside the US as well, yeah? Or are conservatives somehow going to close America's land borders, blockade every port, and shoot down every plane headed their way?


They'll blockade all the ports when they themselves have control of less ports, because the Liberals just can't organize themselves cohesively for defense in this hypothetical scenario. Every Californian is gonna be super surprised when the Conservative fleets come in from the Panama Canal and blockade their beaches!

The wall along the Mexican border will also be something of a surprise.
"Dude, was that there yesterday?"
Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Banter For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Snark That Are Themselves The Mere Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Sarcasm.
He/Him
What do we have that they should want?
We have a wall to work upon!
We have work and they have none
And our work is never done
My children, my children
And the war is never won

The enemy is poverty
And the wall keeps out the enemy
And we build the wall to keep us free
That's why we build the wall
We build the wall to keep us free
We build the wall to keep us free

User avatar
Republic Of Varra
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1587
Founded: Aug 30, 2016
New York Times Democracy

Postby Republic Of Varra » Sun May 07, 2017 5:35 pm

Torrocca wrote:
Republic Of Varra wrote:
1) I have already checked to make sure all of the counties present match the NYTimes (which it does) if I remember correctly this is an older map from a website right after all the votes were tallied. Can't seem to find it now. So yeah, exactly the same map, different look to it.

2) Try harder? No I have already proved my point where you're just running your mouth off not actually providing any evidence yourself. When did I say anything about populations? I provided a map to which areas were more conservative or not. Maybe actually read my original post before making up your own false version of my post?


I actually did read your post, but I digress, that populations bit was a stretch on my end.

In any case, though, your case about Conservatives winning because they control more land misses the key detail of that land being far more sparsely populated than the Liberal areas, which are generally the cities and their outlying suburbs. Any unified Conservative effort would have to be focused almost entirely on one city to see any degree of success, which would largely mean abandoning much of the countryside with their forces to besiege a city - since only a portion of the Conservatives would actually be fighting, this would probably be their entire fighting force going on this great crusade. The Liberal forces could sweep up their farmland while the Conservatives busied their forces with just one city.


Bit of a stretch? I never mentioned even the word populations in my post. You outright lied.

On your point of abandoning the country side. That's one of the main reasons I brought up the fact that the conservatives losing 20 counties would not nearly be as bad as liberals losing one city. It's because they are so sparse they can easily give it up, and either attack the cities, or attack the area of control behind them cutting them off from resources such as food and water. Which, by the way, would not be in as much large numbers as conservatives because they have more food and resources to hand out.

In fact, if the conservatives just defended their own territory, the cities would starve to death before actually making any progress int the conservative territories. And liberal forces would not be able to "sweep" the farmland because many of the liberals are city dwellers not known to the environments outside the city, while the conservatives would have the home field advantage. Especially in the mountains and the foothills where guerrilla warfare would rip through any supply lines or transports from the liberal side.

Now, I mentioned before there would be much more infighting on the liberal side due to their sheer concentration. Again, something a sparser population has the advantage of. Look at Los Angeles for example. 4,000,000 people in that tight space with varying ethnic groups, gangs, and belief systems. If Los Angeles were to fall into disarray and chaos (which I personally believe it would) it would simply be better to ignore it and move on to the next city where even more of those conflicts could be taking place. Not only making it easier to invade, but also harder to control for the liberals to the point where the conservatives might not take the city at all, surround it, and move on to the next.

I had also made a point to where there is more military bases and more overall weapon stock piles for the conservatives. These materials, planes, tanks, etc would make quite the threatening defense force if anyone to try to take the land in the area. These military bases would be used at the conservatives advantage quite well in this case.

So, yes. They are more sparse and yes, the liberals could take more land easily at first. However the amount of other factors involved almost makes the sparseness void as those factors would completely outweigh it in favor of the conservatives.
Political alignment: (0,0)

User avatar
Republic of the Roman Nations
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 432
Founded: Jan 14, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Republic of the Roman Nations » Sun May 07, 2017 5:35 pm

Torrocca wrote:
Republic of the Roman Nations wrote:
There's no need for a massive force, New York for example could have its power lines either physically cut or the coal miners (Yes we still heavily rely on coal and Natural gas) could quit sending shipments. The farmers could do likewise and without electricity they'd have no way to preserve most of their stores of food.

New York also relies on under ground tunnels that connect to freshwater rives some ways away, the openings of those tunnels could be closed off with a little elbow grease and repurposed mining TNT.

It's all about logistics.


Sure, but the Liberal forces dominating a city like New York could just as easily establish a hard defense of things like these to prevent exactly that. The Conservatives would still have to besiege the city either way to force a surrender.


How will they feed themselves? We don't import food, we export it. Even if other nations shipped in food it'd take weeks to arrive, everyone would have starved.

User avatar
Torrocca
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21464
Founded: Dec 01, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby Torrocca » Sun May 07, 2017 5:37 pm

Republic of the Roman Nations wrote:
Torrocca wrote:
Sure, but the Liberal forces dominating a city like New York could just as easily establish a hard defense of things like these to prevent exactly that. The Conservatives would still have to besiege the city either way to force a surrender.


How will they feed themselves? We don't import food, we export it. Even if other nations shipped in food it'd take weeks to arrive, everyone would have starved.


Actually, 20% of the entire USA's food supply is imports. I'm sure for a few cities in a time of war it'd become much more than 20%.
Anarchy's my name AND my game. RAINBOW! Revolutionary Catalonia and Revolutionary Rojava Forever! ^_^
I am Her Majesty, Torra I, of the House Anarkittismo, NS's self-anointed Anarcho-Monarchist Queen. Now known as God-Empress Torra.
"Al fascismo no se le discute, se le destruye/Fascism is not discussed, it is destroyed." - Buenaventura Durruti
You probably have my idea of Communism wrong.
"When the people are being hit with a stick, they are not happier if the stick is called “the stick of the people”. The State is an oppression that must be abolished."
I go by Torra and feminine pronouns! They/Them/Their are perfectly acceptable alternatives as well :3

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 126986
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Democratic Socialists

Postby Ifreann » Sun May 07, 2017 5:39 pm

Republic of the Roman Nations wrote:
Torrocca wrote:
Sure, but the Liberal forces dominating a city like New York could just as easily establish a hard defense of things like these to prevent exactly that. The Conservatives would still have to besiege the city either way to force a surrender.


How will they feed themselves? We don't import food, we export it. Even if other nations shipped in food it'd take weeks to arrive, everyone would have starved.

Are you familiar with the mode of transportation known as "flight"?
Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Banter For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Snark That Are Themselves The Mere Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Sarcasm.
He/Him
What do we have that they should want?
We have a wall to work upon!
We have work and they have none
And our work is never done
My children, my children
And the war is never won

The enemy is poverty
And the wall keeps out the enemy
And we build the wall to keep us free
That's why we build the wall
We build the wall to keep us free
We build the wall to keep us free

User avatar
Republic Of Varra
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1587
Founded: Aug 30, 2016
New York Times Democracy

Postby Republic Of Varra » Sun May 07, 2017 5:42 pm

Ifreann wrote:
Republic of the Roman Nations wrote:
More land mass is always beneficial, just ask Napoleon. As for the Liberal enclaves, they're completely reliant on outside supplies from red areas.

I do think it's disingenuous to say that the liberal cities are industrialized, most of that left overseas twenty years ago. All they have left is a service industry, no real production of physical objects.

If a war broke out there is simply no way the left could keep their citizens fed and watered, there's just to many of them within too dense of an area. Fighting for food and water within those areas would curb any attempt to expand. Hell, even if they did try to expand the right could again take tactics from the Napoleonic war and employ a scorched earth policy.

TL;DR most libs starve to death within a month.

You know that supplies can come from outside the US as well, yeah? Or are conservatives somehow going to close America's land borders, blockade every port, and shoot down every plane headed their way?


I thought we were excluding the outside world in this case, but let me take you up on that for a moment.

What countries would want to get themselves involved in a civil war of this magnitude? And what would their interests be? Would they completely support one side? Support various different groups during the infighting? How would they know which groups to trust and distrust? How many countries would this involve? Or which countries would simply opt out?

There would be so many different factors to take into account that it would be nearly impossible to predict that segment of this theory. Which is why I thought we weren't using this in the first place. And, question, why would conservatives be the ones closing everything, blockading everything, etc? Wouldn't both sides be hostile to a group supporting the other, or friendly to groups that would help them? Completely blocking out supplies and shooting down other countries vehicles would be suicide. So no, blocking the entire country would not be an option for either side.
Political alignment: (0,0)

User avatar
Torrocca
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21464
Founded: Dec 01, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby Torrocca » Sun May 07, 2017 5:42 pm

Ifreann wrote:
Torrocca wrote:
They'll blockade all the ports when they themselves have control of less ports, because the Liberals just can't organize themselves cohesively for defense in this hypothetical scenario. Every Californian is gonna be super surprised when the Conservative fleets come in from the Panama Canal and blockade their beaches!

The wall along the Mexican border will also be something of a surprise.
"Dude, was that there yesterday?"


Also that nation-spanning missile defense system covering thousands upon thousands of miles of the country.

Republic Of Varra wrote:-snip-


The big thing, though, is that a fifth of the US food supply is imported. That's for over 300 million people. Cities not even covering a third of that could easily make due off imported food alone. The Conservatives, if they were aiming to win, would have to force a siege on a Liberal city. That'd mean pulling troops out of rural areas and moving them to one location. That'd mean abandoning large swathes of the countryside to their own devices and practically undefended. They'd only be able to set siege to any one city at a given time; trying to do more would be impossible. Every other city, owned by the Liberals, could amass their forces while one was under siege and just sweep over the countryside and even strike from behind the Conservative forces while they were busy conducting siege warfare. The Conservatives, with where they're located territorial-wise, can't pull off a strategic win here.
Anarchy's my name AND my game. RAINBOW! Revolutionary Catalonia and Revolutionary Rojava Forever! ^_^
I am Her Majesty, Torra I, of the House Anarkittismo, NS's self-anointed Anarcho-Monarchist Queen. Now known as God-Empress Torra.
"Al fascismo no se le discute, se le destruye/Fascism is not discussed, it is destroyed." - Buenaventura Durruti
You probably have my idea of Communism wrong.
"When the people are being hit with a stick, they are not happier if the stick is called “the stick of the people”. The State is an oppression that must be abolished."
I go by Torra and feminine pronouns! They/Them/Their are perfectly acceptable alternatives as well :3

User avatar
Republic of the Roman Nations
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 432
Founded: Jan 14, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Republic of the Roman Nations » Sun May 07, 2017 5:43 pm

Torrocca wrote:
Republic of the Roman Nations wrote:
How will they feed themselves? We don't import food, we export it. Even if other nations shipped in food it'd take weeks to arrive, everyone would have starved.


Actually, 20% of the entire USA's food supply is imports. I'm sure for a few cities in a time of war it'd become much more than 20%.


Not soon enough, it takes time to approve the aid, load the supplies (Long ass time for anything meaningful), and about a week to ship over the seas.

Since the red state miners are no longer exporting energy to these cities they'd have no way to preserve the food they already have. What they do have in nonperishables divided among the population may last three days, but we know people are going to hoard food. Some people won't have any and will resort to violence to feed themselves.

The red only to put the heat on for a month at most.
Last edited by Republic of the Roman Nations on Sun May 07, 2017 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Republic of the Roman Nations
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 432
Founded: Jan 14, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Republic of the Roman Nations » Sun May 07, 2017 5:46 pm

Ifreann wrote:
Republic of the Roman Nations wrote:
How will they feed themselves? We don't import food, we export it. Even if other nations shipped in food it'd take weeks to arrive, everyone would have starved.

Are you familiar with the mode of transportation known as "flight"?


LOL, you want to feed an entire city with only air transport? That just barely worked for Berlin, but they only needed to fly a few miles, not thousands.
Last edited by Republic of the Roman Nations on Sun May 07, 2017 5:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Torrocca
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21464
Founded: Dec 01, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby Torrocca » Sun May 07, 2017 5:47 pm

Republic of the Roman Nations wrote:
Torrocca wrote:
Actually, 20% of the entire USA's food supply is imports. I'm sure for a few cities in a time of war it'd become much more than 20%.


Not soon enough, it takes time to approve the aid, load the supplies (Long ass time for anything meaningful), and about a week to ship over the seas.

Since the red state miners are no longer exporting energy to these cities they'd have no way to preserve the food they already have. What they do have in nonperishables divided among the population may last three days, but we know people are going to hoard food. Some people won't have any and will resort to violence to feed themselves.


Generators no longer exist.

Other forms of energy no longer exist.

Trade stops existing the instant war starts.

Smugglers don't exist.

Open land like parks in cities can't be converted to farmland.
Anarchy's my name AND my game. RAINBOW! Revolutionary Catalonia and Revolutionary Rojava Forever! ^_^
I am Her Majesty, Torra I, of the House Anarkittismo, NS's self-anointed Anarcho-Monarchist Queen. Now known as God-Empress Torra.
"Al fascismo no se le discute, se le destruye/Fascism is not discussed, it is destroyed." - Buenaventura Durruti
You probably have my idea of Communism wrong.
"When the people are being hit with a stick, they are not happier if the stick is called “the stick of the people”. The State is an oppression that must be abolished."
I go by Torra and feminine pronouns! They/Them/Their are perfectly acceptable alternatives as well :3

User avatar
Charellia
Minister
 
Posts: 3076
Founded: Jul 24, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Charellia » Sun May 07, 2017 5:47 pm

Republic Of Varra wrote:
Ifreann wrote:You know that supplies can come from outside the US as well, yeah? Or are conservatives somehow going to close America's land borders, blockade every port, and shoot down every plane headed their way?


I thought we were excluding the outside world in this case, but let me take you up on that for a moment.

What countries would want to get themselves involved in a civil war of this magnitude? And what would their interests be? Would they completely support one side? Support various different groups during the infighting? How would they know which groups to trust and distrust? How many countries would this involve? Or which countries would simply opt out?

There would be so many different factors to take into account that it would be nearly impossible to predict that segment of this theory. Which is why I thought we weren't using this in the first place. And, question, why would conservatives be the ones closing everything, blockading everything, etc? Wouldn't both sides be hostile to a group supporting the other, or friendly to groups that would help them? Completely blocking out supplies and shooting down other countries vehicles would be suicide. So no, blocking the entire country would not be an option for either side.

It wouldn't just be a matter of foreign governments getting involved. Even if they stayed neutral, there would still be civilians willing to smuggle food to the blockaded party, either out of support or in order to make a profit.

User avatar
Republic of the Roman Nations
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 432
Founded: Jan 14, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Republic of the Roman Nations » Sun May 07, 2017 5:52 pm

Torrocca wrote:
Republic of the Roman Nations wrote:
Not soon enough, it takes time to approve the aid, load the supplies (Long ass time for anything meaningful), and about a week to ship over the seas.

Since the red state miners are no longer exporting energy to these cities they'd have no way to preserve the food they already have. What they do have in nonperishables divided among the population may last three days, but we know people are going to hoard food. Some people won't have any and will resort to violence to feed themselves.


Generators no longer exist.

Other forms of energy no longer exist.

Trade stops existing the instant war starts.

Smugglers don't exist.

Open land like parks in cities can't be converted to farmland.



Generators need natural gas: Not in cities

Other forms of energy: Are so inefficient it's laughable

Trade: Takes time you don't have

Smugglers: Can carry only so much

Open parks in cities: No where near enough land to feed a city, not to mention not enough time for the plants to grow.

User avatar
Republic Of Varra
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1587
Founded: Aug 30, 2016
New York Times Democracy

Postby Republic Of Varra » Sun May 07, 2017 5:52 pm

Torrocca wrote:
Ifreann wrote:The wall along the Mexican border will also be something of a surprise.
"Dude, was that there yesterday?"


Also that nation-spanning missile defense system covering thousands upon thousands of miles of the country.

Republic Of Varra wrote:-snip-


The big thing, though, is that a fifth of the US food supply is imported. That's for over 300 million people. Cities not even covering a third of that could easily make due off imported food alone. The Conservatives, if they were aiming to win, would have to force a siege on a Liberal city. That'd mean pulling troops out of rural areas and moving them to one location. That'd mean abandoning large swathes of the countryside to their own devices and practically undefended. They'd only be able to set siege to any one city at a given time; trying to do more would be impossible. Every other city, owned by the Liberals, could amass their forces while one was under siege and just sweep over the countryside and even strike from behind the Conservative forces while they were busy conducting siege warfare. The Conservatives, with where they're located territorial-wise, can't pull off a strategic win here.


Actually they can. They have so many people in the middle of the US, not under siege by liberals (who tend to live more nearer to coastlines and the Great Lakes, although conservatives do as well) so they could simply move the millions of people not in combat to the front lines. Much of conservative territory is not even under threat at all while most of the liberal territory would be almost near or literally on the front lines. The conservatives would easily be able to mop the floor with smaller cities, which tend to have larger conservative populations than bigger ones, simply defend their holdings near the front lines, and wait for a bigger city to collapse and easily take up arms there. Not to mention, many of the cities are separated from each other, making supply lines that much harder for liberals, as opposed to conservatives who are connected almost through every county.

On your one fifth note, that would mean that not only does four fifths of the food come from majority conservative areas for the most part, but that would mean that cities would have only 20% of their food supply while conservatives have anywhere from 40% all the way up to 80%. On that note, which outside countries would still be involved in food trade with the now crumbling US? There obviously would be some but some would very well cut their supplies and move on to safer venues. Not to mention, the sheer amount of different infighting groups that would be funded by various different outside forces, making it even harder for liberals to operate.
Political alignment: (0,0)

User avatar
Republic of the Roman Nations
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 432
Founded: Jan 14, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Republic of the Roman Nations » Sun May 07, 2017 5:54 pm

Republic Of Varra wrote:
Torrocca wrote:
Also that nation-spanning missile defense system covering thousands upon thousands of miles of the country.



The big thing, though, is that a fifth of the US food supply is imported. That's for over 300 million people. Cities not even covering a third of that could easily make due off imported food alone. The Conservatives, if they were aiming to win, would have to force a siege on a Liberal city. That'd mean pulling troops out of rural areas and moving them to one location. That'd mean abandoning large swathes of the countryside to their own devices and practically undefended. They'd only be able to set siege to any one city at a given time; trying to do more would be impossible. Every other city, owned by the Liberals, could amass their forces while one was under siege and just sweep over the countryside and even strike from behind the Conservative forces while they were busy conducting siege warfare. The Conservatives, with where they're located territorial-wise, can't pull off a strategic win here.


Actually they can. They have so many people in the middle of the US, not under siege by liberals (who tend to live more nearer to coastlines and the Great Lakes, although conservatives do as well) so they could simply move the millions of people not in combat to the front lines. Much of conservative territory is not even under threat at all while most of the liberal territory would be almost near or literally on the front lines. The conservatives would easily be able to mop the floor with smaller cities, which tend to have larger conservative populations than bigger ones, simply defend their holdings near the front lines, and wait for a bigger city to collapse and easily take up arms there. Not to mention, many of the cities are separated from each other, making supply lines that much harder for liberals, as opposed to conservatives who are connected almost through every county.

On your one fifth note, that would mean that not only does four fifths of the food come from majority conservative areas for the most part, but that would mean that cities would have only 20% of their food supply while conservatives have anywhere from 40% all the way up to 80%. On that note, which outside countries would still be involved in food trade with the now crumbling US? There obviously would be some but some would very well cut their supplies and move on to safer venues. Not to mention, the sheer amount of different infighting groups that would be funded by various different outside forces, making it even harder for liberals to operate.


A lot of grain in Europe now comes from Russia, the warming climate has made it possible for them to grow more.

User avatar
Republic Of Varra
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1587
Founded: Aug 30, 2016
New York Times Democracy

Postby Republic Of Varra » Sun May 07, 2017 5:54 pm

Charellia wrote:
Republic Of Varra wrote:
I thought we were excluding the outside world in this case, but let me take you up on that for a moment.

What countries would want to get themselves involved in a civil war of this magnitude? And what would their interests be? Would they completely support one side? Support various different groups during the infighting? How would they know which groups to trust and distrust? How many countries would this involve? Or which countries would simply opt out?

There would be so many different factors to take into account that it would be nearly impossible to predict that segment of this theory. Which is why I thought we weren't using this in the first place. And, question, why would conservatives be the ones closing everything, blockading everything, etc? Wouldn't both sides be hostile to a group supporting the other, or friendly to groups that would help them? Completely blocking out supplies and shooting down other countries vehicles would be suicide. So no, blocking the entire country would not be an option for either side.

It wouldn't just be a matter of foreign governments getting involved. Even if they stayed neutral, there would still be civilians willing to smuggle food to the blockaded party, either out of support or in order to make a profit.


So there wouldn't be a clear line of who is being supported and who isn't. Which makes this even harder to theorize about. Not only that but if foreign countries remained neutral, all there would be to supply is small scale smuggling runs which would hurt the liberal strongholds much more than the conservatives.
Last edited by Republic Of Varra on Sun May 07, 2017 5:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Political alignment: (0,0)

User avatar
Charellia
Minister
 
Posts: 3076
Founded: Jul 24, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Charellia » Sun May 07, 2017 5:56 pm

Republic of the Roman Nations wrote:
Torrocca wrote:
Generators no longer exist.

Other forms of energy no longer exist.

Trade stops existing the instant war starts.

Smugglers don't exist.

Open land like parks in cities can't be converted to farmland.



Generators need natural gas: Not in cities

Other forms of energy: Are so inefficient it's laughable

Trade: Takes time you don't have

Smugglers: Can carry only so much

Open parks in cities: No where near enough land to feed a city, not to mention not enough time for the plants to grow.

Trade goods are always in motion. As long as there's money to be made, trade would continue.

User avatar
Torrocca
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21464
Founded: Dec 01, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby Torrocca » Sun May 07, 2017 5:58 pm

Republic of the Roman Nations wrote:
Torrocca wrote:
Generators no longer exist.

Other forms of energy no longer exist.

Trade stops existing the instant war starts.

Smugglers don't exist.

Open land like parks in cities can't be converted to farmland.



Generators need natural gas: Not in cities

Other forms of energy: Are so inefficient it's laughable

Trade: Takes time you don't have

Smugglers: Can carry only so much

Open parks in cities: No where near enough land to feed a city, not to mention not enough time for the plants to grow.


Nuclear energy is inefficient, I guess.

Trade doesn't really take that much time, actually. Ships carrying food and smugglers could easily keep a city fed enough to endure a siege.

Republic Of Varra wrote:
Torrocca wrote:
Also that nation-spanning missile defense system covering thousands upon thousands of miles of the country.



The big thing, though, is that a fifth of the US food supply is imported. That's for over 300 million people. Cities not even covering a third of that could easily make due off imported food alone. The Conservatives, if they were aiming to win, would have to force a siege on a Liberal city. That'd mean pulling troops out of rural areas and moving them to one location. That'd mean abandoning large swathes of the countryside to their own devices and practically undefended. They'd only be able to set siege to any one city at a given time; trying to do more would be impossible. Every other city, owned by the Liberals, could amass their forces while one was under siege and just sweep over the countryside and even strike from behind the Conservative forces while they were busy conducting siege warfare. The Conservatives, with where they're located territorial-wise, can't pull off a strategic win here.


Actually they can. They have so many people in the middle of the US, not under siege by liberals (who tend to live more nearer to coastlines and the Great Lakes, although conservatives do as well) so they could simply move the millions of people not in combat to the front lines. Much of conservative territory is not even under threat at all while most of the liberal territory would be almost near or literally on the front lines. The conservatives would easily be able to mop the floor with smaller cities, which tend to have larger conservative populations than bigger ones, simply defend their holdings near the front lines, and wait for a bigger city to collapse and easily take up arms there. Not to mention, many of the cities are separated from each other, making supply lines that much harder for liberals, as opposed to conservatives who are connected almost through every county.

On your one fifth note, that would mean that not only does four fifths of the food come from majority conservative areas for the most part, but that would mean that cities would have only 20% of their food supply while conservatives have anywhere from 40% all the way up to 80%. On that note, which outside countries would still be involved in food trade with the now crumbling US? There obviously would be some but some would very well cut their supplies and move on to safer venues. Not to mention, the sheer amount of different infighting groups that would be funded by various different outside forces, making it even harder for liberals to operate.


This doesn't take into account the fact that the Conservatives would literally be forced to fight room to room in most, if not all the buildings in a city, possibly enduring thousands or even tens of thousands of casualties of just one city. Hell, most of the skyscrapers in New York alone could be converted into armed fortresses with sightlines for miles. Again, the Conservatives would have to dedicate most of their forces to just one city at a time and endure the grueling, sluggish nature of siege warfare and urban combat if they were cocky enough to actually attack. A few thousand defenders in one city could take on hundreds of thousands of attackers with little issue in the modern day. Even more so for a coastal city, whose population could endure off food imports alone while holding the line against an attacking force.
Last edited by Torrocca on Sun May 07, 2017 5:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Anarchy's my name AND my game. RAINBOW! Revolutionary Catalonia and Revolutionary Rojava Forever! ^_^
I am Her Majesty, Torra I, of the House Anarkittismo, NS's self-anointed Anarcho-Monarchist Queen. Now known as God-Empress Torra.
"Al fascismo no se le discute, se le destruye/Fascism is not discussed, it is destroyed." - Buenaventura Durruti
You probably have my idea of Communism wrong.
"When the people are being hit with a stick, they are not happier if the stick is called “the stick of the people”. The State is an oppression that must be abolished."
I go by Torra and feminine pronouns! They/Them/Their are perfectly acceptable alternatives as well :3

User avatar
Republic of the Roman Nations
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 432
Founded: Jan 14, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Republic of the Roman Nations » Sun May 07, 2017 5:59 pm

Charellia wrote:
Republic of the Roman Nations wrote:

Generators need natural gas: Not in cities

Other forms of energy: Are so inefficient it's laughable

Trade: Takes time you don't have

Smugglers: Can carry only so much

Open parks in cities: No where near enough land to feed a city, not to mention not enough time for the plants to grow.

Trade goods are always in motion. As long as there's money to be made, trade would continue.



Yes, but most coming to the US is geared toward consumerism, not food goods. The shippers would need to re-rig their fleet, and not all cargo vessels can transport food stuffs (Refrigeration).

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 126986
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Democratic Socialists

Postby Ifreann » Sun May 07, 2017 6:02 pm

Republic Of Varra wrote:
Ifreann wrote:You know that supplies can come from outside the US as well, yeah? Or are conservatives somehow going to close America's land borders, blockade every port, and shoot down every plane headed their way?


I thought we were excluding the outside world in this case, but let me take you up on that for a moment.

What countries would want to get themselves involved in a civil war of this magnitude? And what would their interests be? Would they completely support one side? Support various different groups during the infighting? How would they know which groups to trust and distrust? How many countries would this involve? Or which countries would simply opt out?

I earlier suggested that Canada would quietly invade and seize control of America's nuclear arsenal. I was joking, but it does go to show how invested the world would be in this war. Depending on how crazy shit was getting, Russia and China might want to nuke the US rather than let America's nukes come under the control of patent lunatics(which is surely how both sides would look to the outside world). The UK and France might even let them, and America might be too busy civil warring to stop them. If it seemed like Trump had lost it and was leading the conservatives they'd nuke DC as well. The countries hosting American military bases and missile silos and what have you would have no choice but to roll in with their own police or military and take control of them, or at the very least surround them and keep the suddenly violent Yanks contained.

There would be so many different factors to take into account that it would be nearly impossible to predict that segment of this theory. Which is why I thought we weren't using this in the first place. And, question, why would conservatives be the ones closing everything, blockading everything, etc? Wouldn't both sides be hostile to a group supporting the other, or friendly to groups that would help them? Completely blocking out supplies and shooting down other countries vehicles would be suicide. So no, blocking the entire country would not be an option for either side.

Ergo, starving liberals out of their cities isn't going to work.


Republic of the Roman Nations wrote:
Ifreann wrote:Are you familiar with the mode of transportation known as "flight"?


LOL, you want to feed an entire city with only air transport?

Just pointing out that planes don't take weeks to cross the Atlantic or the Pacific.
Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Banter For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Snark That Are Themselves The Mere Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Sarcasm.
He/Him
What do we have that they should want?
We have a wall to work upon!
We have work and they have none
And our work is never done
My children, my children
And the war is never won

The enemy is poverty
And the wall keeps out the enemy
And we build the wall to keep us free
That's why we build the wall
We build the wall to keep us free
We build the wall to keep us free

User avatar
Republic of the Roman Nations
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 432
Founded: Jan 14, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Republic of the Roman Nations » Sun May 07, 2017 6:05 pm

Just pointing out that planes don't take weeks to cross the Atlantic or the Pacific.[


That's not the point of contention, the point is that you'd need so many planes it's infeasible. Look up the Berlin airlift, it'd have to be like that but on a scale 100 times larger.
Last edited by Republic of the Roman Nations on Sun May 07, 2017 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Charellia
Minister
 
Posts: 3076
Founded: Jul 24, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Charellia » Sun May 07, 2017 6:06 pm

Republic of the Roman Nations wrote:
Charellia wrote:Trade goods are always in motion. As long as there's money to be made, trade would continue.



Yes, but most coming to the US is geared toward consumerism, not food goods. The shippers would need to re-rig their fleet, and not all cargo vessels can transport food stuffs (Refrigeration).

America does import food, though, and those food supplies would still be coming in. As need rose, so would the amount of food. Refrigerated goods would have very little value in this situation, so the focus would be on non-perishables. The besieged cities would also start importing their food from closer ports, so supplies would start coming in faster.

User avatar
Republic of the Roman Nations
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 432
Founded: Jan 14, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Republic of the Roman Nations » Sun May 07, 2017 6:08 pm

This doesn't take into account the fact that the Conservatives would literally be forced to fight room to room in most, if not all the buildings in a city, possibly enduring thousands or even tens of thousands of casualties of just one city. Hell, most of the skyscrapers in New York alone could be converted into armed fortresses with sightlines for miles. Again, the Conservatives would have to dedicate most of their forces to just one city at a time and endure the grueling, sluggish nature of siege warfare and urban combat if they were cocky enough to actually attack. A few thousand defenders in one city could take on hundreds of thousands of attackers with little issue in the modern day. Even more so for a coastal city, whose population could endure off food imports alone while holding the line against an attacking force.


Cough battle of Grozny cough.
Last edited by Republic of the Roman Nations on Sun May 07, 2017 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Republic Of Varra
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1587
Founded: Aug 30, 2016
New York Times Democracy

Postby Republic Of Varra » Sun May 07, 2017 6:09 pm

Torrocca wrote:
Republic of the Roman Nations wrote:

Generators need natural gas: Not in cities

Other forms of energy: Are so inefficient it's laughable

Trade: Takes time you don't have

Smugglers: Can carry only so much

Open parks in cities: No where near enough land to feed a city, not to mention not enough time for the plants to grow.


Nuclear energy is inefficient, I guess.

Trade doesn't really take that much time, actually. Ships carrying food and smugglers could easily keep a city fed enough to endure a siege.

Republic Of Varra wrote:
Actually they can. They have so many people in the middle of the US, not under siege by liberals (who tend to live more nearer to coastlines and the Great Lakes, although conservatives do as well) so they could simply move the millions of people not in combat to the front lines. Much of conservative territory is not even under threat at all while most of the liberal territory would be almost near or literally on the front lines. The conservatives would easily be able to mop the floor with smaller cities, which tend to have larger conservative populations than bigger ones, simply defend their holdings near the front lines, and wait for a bigger city to collapse and easily take up arms there. Not to mention, many of the cities are separated from each other, making supply lines that much harder for liberals, as opposed to conservatives who are connected almost through every county.

On your one fifth note, that would mean that not only does four fifths of the food come from majority conservative areas for the most part, but that would mean that cities would have only 20% of their food supply while conservatives have anywhere from 40% all the way up to 80%. On that note, which outside countries would still be involved in food trade with the now crumbling US? There obviously would be some but some would very well cut their supplies and move on to safer venues. Not to mention, the sheer amount of different infighting groups that would be funded by various different outside forces, making it even harder for liberals to operate.


This doesn't take into account the fact that the Conservatives would literally be forced to fight room to room in most, if not all the buildings in a city, possibly enduring thousands or even tens of thousands of casualties of just one city. Hell, most of the skyscrapers in New York alone could be converted into armed fortresses with sightlines for miles. Again, the Conservatives would have to dedicate most of their forces to just one city at a time and endure the grueling, sluggish nature of siege warfare and urban combat if they were cocky enough to actually attack. A few thousand defenders in one city could take on hundreds of thousands of attackers with little issue in the modern day.


On your first comment responding to another post, most nuclear energy plants are actually in the countrysides and more conservative areas of even left leaning counties. Map here: https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactors/ In fact most nuclear reactors are placed far away from urban centers because of the high concentration of people there. More energy to the conservatives.

Now on to your response to me. In the small cities where there would be little to no actual large buildings (I'm basing this up to around 200,000 people) fighting would most likely not be locked into room to room combat, because of the fact many conservatives would already be there before the actual fighting militia forces reach the cities. Plus most smaller scale cities tend to be more spread out giving more room for road and ground combat as opposed to room to room combat. Not only that, but like I said above, the conservatives would actually have a large force to use because of the fact that so much of their areas are not under siege and most of the liberal strongholds would be near or on the front lines. This would make the conservatives more ready for assault and offensive combat as opposed to liberals who would be stuck defending. So more attackers with more supplies/resources/etc vs less defenders with less materials and weapons at their disposal.

Now, the thing with larger cities. Like I said before, the conservatives would most likely just end up surrounding and choking the cities out of resources for a surrender rather than attacking them. Plus, not only that, but larger cities will experience a very large amount of infighting, thus hindering their ability to defend very drastically. So, the conservatives would most often and likely not perform room to room combat and simply move on to the next target.
Last edited by Republic Of Varra on Sun May 07, 2017 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Political alignment: (0,0)

User avatar
Republic of the Roman Nations
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 432
Founded: Jan 14, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Republic of the Roman Nations » Sun May 07, 2017 6:10 pm

Charellia wrote:
Republic of the Roman Nations wrote:

Yes, but most coming to the US is geared toward consumerism, not food goods. The shippers would need to re-rig their fleet, and not all cargo vessels can transport food stuffs (Refrigeration).

America does import food, though, and those food supplies would still be coming in. As need rose, so would the amount of food. Refrigerated goods would have very little value in this situation, so the focus would be on non-perishables. The besieged cities would also start importing their food from closer ports, so supplies would start coming in faster.


How well of a job did we do feeding those in New Orleans or those in Haiti? This would be like that on a grand scale.

User avatar
Torrocca
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21464
Founded: Dec 01, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby Torrocca » Sun May 07, 2017 6:11 pm

Republic of the Roman Nations wrote:Cough battle of Grozny cough.


Grozny involved a massive bombardment campaign by a professional armed force armed like a professional armed force.

This hypothetical civil war most likely wouldn't involve that.
Anarchy's my name AND my game. RAINBOW! Revolutionary Catalonia and Revolutionary Rojava Forever! ^_^
I am Her Majesty, Torra I, of the House Anarkittismo, NS's self-anointed Anarcho-Monarchist Queen. Now known as God-Empress Torra.
"Al fascismo no se le discute, se le destruye/Fascism is not discussed, it is destroyed." - Buenaventura Durruti
You probably have my idea of Communism wrong.
"When the people are being hit with a stick, they are not happier if the stick is called “the stick of the people”. The State is an oppression that must be abolished."
I go by Torra and feminine pronouns! They/Them/Their are perfectly acceptable alternatives as well :3

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aellex, Ameriganastan, Bienenhalde, Bombadil, Bongo Johnson, Cerillium, Dejackistan, Democratic Empire of United Nations, Diarcesia, El-Amin Caliphate, First American Empire, Forsher, Hiachijan, Hittanryan, Impaled Nazarene, Lysset, Majestic-12 [Bot], Newland City, Saiwania, Salus Maior, Shrillland, Sirocca, Soviet Computocracy, Tarsonis, Telconi, The New California Republic, Threlizdun, Thuzbekistan, Vassenor, Zrhajan

Advertisement

Remove ads