Second American Civil War - 1993
- Thread starter Beck Reilly
- Start date
- Status
Something tells me if the rebel Guard and militia types can't seize that fort real fast, they'll get into a Stalingrad-type situation (the encircling Guard gets encircled by Federal troops).
Okay. Now, I've got the rebellion started. Now, I need a background for the rebellion. But I have two problems: A) let's face it, this rebellion isn't going to last too long against American forces from the time, so I've got to degrade those forces at least slightly, and B) this rebellion isn't going to last too long without international support either. So, I think I may have found a way to kill two birds with one stone, as they say.
Now, the first step will be to draw in Canada, as I mentioned earlier in this thread. BTW, does anyone have any major, major problems with my scenario to draw in Canada? Speak now, if you do. Now, in order for my scenario to work, we're going to need a shrewd Prime Minister in Canada, one who will realize that if they don't fight, the western independence movements are going to gain a lot of support (if the Canadian government let's American forces into Canada to attack Canadians, that ain't going to look to good on the Canadian government). So, we need a shrewd Prime Minister in place in 1992. Let's make someone up, someone from a (relatively, at least) western province would be nice. Let's say Alistair Chamberlain of Manitoba becomes Prime Minister of Canada. Say Brian Mulroney resigns earlier due to a fiasco of some kind (hell, I think I can kill THREE birds with one stone, h/o a couple paragraphs to find out what that stone is).
Okay, now let's say relations between the US and Canada have suffieciently eroded (I'm open to suggestionas as to why) that Canada is willing to step up and defend her citizens. A series of misunderstandings and nastily worded notes lead to a confrontation between US forces chasing arms runners and reservists of the Royal Regina Rifles, Land Force Western Area, causing a declaration of war by one of the governments (preferably the United States).
Now, we have pretty much the same problem as with the rebels, Canada, with its 56,000 man military, isn't going to last long alone against the United States. The problem here, is that the one most likely to come to the aid of Canada, Britain, is tight with the United States. So, we need an event which will cause Anglo-US relations to significantly worsen. Here comes the stone we're going to kill our three birds with:
For some reason or another, perhaps just the worsening economy (which in OTL went virtually ignored), following the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, the US turns inward to deal with its own problems, and doesn't get involved in the First Gulf War.
Okay, okay, I know, it may not be the greatest alternative, but I can't think of any other way to achieve what I need. Think about it, say a coalition, led by the UK and France, rather than the US, goes into Kuwait and Iraq. They push the Iraqis out Kuwait but can't achieve the success of OTL's US invasion. They push the Iraqis back into Iraq, but reach a stalemate south of Basra. The war grinds to a halt, with only minor advances made, for the next three months until a ceasefire is reached, negotiated by the US nonetheless. The US doesn't gain the valuable experience and thus, their military in 1992 isn't as efficient a killing machine. Meanwhile, because of the fiasco, several hundred Canadian troops have been killed for "no good reason," and Mulroney resigns, allowing Chamberlain to enter the stage. Now, with the ceasefire called, here comes the US, four months late, to put out the oil fires. They do a good job of that and take a lot of the credit, and the Europeans are bullshit. They were the ones that got killed for God sakes. Now, NATO is in turmoil. With the major enemy gone, and the US apparently unwilling to lead its allies, many countries leave it. Britain, however, stays in, hoping for a new President to be elected and a return to times of old. However, with Dukakis martyred, they don't get what they want, and, being much closer to Canada now, send, at the very least, mechanical support to the Canadians, with the possibility of manpower to follow...
Just an idea, feel free to rip it to shreds. It's just something I've been playing with in my mind.
BTW, I have a whole series of maps showing support and whatsuch, but they wouldn't come out well here.
Now, the first step will be to draw in Canada, as I mentioned earlier in this thread. BTW, does anyone have any major, major problems with my scenario to draw in Canada? Speak now, if you do. Now, in order for my scenario to work, we're going to need a shrewd Prime Minister in Canada, one who will realize that if they don't fight, the western independence movements are going to gain a lot of support (if the Canadian government let's American forces into Canada to attack Canadians, that ain't going to look to good on the Canadian government). So, we need a shrewd Prime Minister in place in 1992. Let's make someone up, someone from a (relatively, at least) western province would be nice. Let's say Alistair Chamberlain of Manitoba becomes Prime Minister of Canada. Say Brian Mulroney resigns earlier due to a fiasco of some kind (hell, I think I can kill THREE birds with one stone, h/o a couple paragraphs to find out what that stone is).
Okay, now let's say relations between the US and Canada have suffieciently eroded (I'm open to suggestionas as to why) that Canada is willing to step up and defend her citizens. A series of misunderstandings and nastily worded notes lead to a confrontation between US forces chasing arms runners and reservists of the Royal Regina Rifles, Land Force Western Area, causing a declaration of war by one of the governments (preferably the United States).
Now, we have pretty much the same problem as with the rebels, Canada, with its 56,000 man military, isn't going to last long alone against the United States. The problem here, is that the one most likely to come to the aid of Canada, Britain, is tight with the United States. So, we need an event which will cause Anglo-US relations to significantly worsen. Here comes the stone we're going to kill our three birds with:
For some reason or another, perhaps just the worsening economy (which in OTL went virtually ignored), following the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, the US turns inward to deal with its own problems, and doesn't get involved in the First Gulf War.
Okay, okay, I know, it may not be the greatest alternative, but I can't think of any other way to achieve what I need. Think about it, say a coalition, led by the UK and France, rather than the US, goes into Kuwait and Iraq. They push the Iraqis out Kuwait but can't achieve the success of OTL's US invasion. They push the Iraqis back into Iraq, but reach a stalemate south of Basra. The war grinds to a halt, with only minor advances made, for the next three months until a ceasefire is reached, negotiated by the US nonetheless. The US doesn't gain the valuable experience and thus, their military in 1992 isn't as efficient a killing machine. Meanwhile, because of the fiasco, several hundred Canadian troops have been killed for "no good reason," and Mulroney resigns, allowing Chamberlain to enter the stage. Now, with the ceasefire called, here comes the US, four months late, to put out the oil fires. They do a good job of that and take a lot of the credit, and the Europeans are bullshit. They were the ones that got killed for God sakes. Now, NATO is in turmoil. With the major enemy gone, and the US apparently unwilling to lead its allies, many countries leave it. Britain, however, stays in, hoping for a new President to be elected and a return to times of old. However, with Dukakis martyred, they don't get what they want, and, being much closer to Canada now, send, at the very least, mechanical support to the Canadians, with the possibility of manpower to follow...
Just an idea, feel free to rip it to shreds. It's just something I've been playing with in my mind.
BTW, I have a whole series of maps showing support and whatsuch, but they wouldn't come out well here.
Chris
Banned
Interesting, one possibility would be a sucessful UK/French (better not let them have command 
)/Aussie/German/Italian invasion of Iraq, leading to the fall of Saddam and Iraq's paritaion between the powers, or perhaps an European controling body, preparing the iraqis for self-rule.
A democratic iraq threaterns saudi, which is a linchpin of US stategy, so the US asks the nations to leave asap. The french pull the others along in refusing, so the US sends more troops at Saudi request, only to discover that they are unpopular with the saudi people, who eventully overthow the saudis and evict the US troops. US is unhappy, saudi self-distructs and the EU becomes stronger when the US unhappyness takes pysical form.
Problem: canada is not strong enough to stop a US invasion, although I'm sure that the Euros will be willing to send supplies and arms to canada. Perhaps if canada refused to allow US troops to enter, but agreed to intern all rebels who entered canada.
Chris
)/Aussie/German/Italian invasion of Iraq, leading to the fall of Saddam and Iraq's paritaion between the powers, or perhaps an European controling body, preparing the iraqis for self-rule. A democratic iraq threaterns saudi, which is a linchpin of US stategy, so the US asks the nations to leave asap. The french pull the others along in refusing, so the US sends more troops at Saudi request, only to discover that they are unpopular with the saudi people, who eventully overthow the saudis and evict the US troops. US is unhappy, saudi self-distructs and the EU becomes stronger when the US unhappyness takes pysical form.
Problem: canada is not strong enough to stop a US invasion, although I'm sure that the Euros will be willing to send supplies and arms to canada. Perhaps if canada refused to allow US troops to enter, but agreed to intern all rebels who entered canada.
Chris
Interesting. But that still leaves the rebels with no allies, meaning that they'll soon collapse. I'm hoping to spark a rebellion which will last for (at least) eight months. The five states can't hold out alone for eight months, and with Canada interring rebels who enter their border, that can only hurt them.
Chris
Banned
Perhaps have major propiganda. some states refuse to send their guardsmen to fight, other demand concessions from the feds before joining them, and others would have their own axes to grind
Perhaps some more racist southern militas will try something stupid, giving the feds two problems.
But I can't see anyone really being able to help the rebels out when the US is so powerful. Perhaps a few arms shipments.
OR, are their any nuclear weapons based in those states? That would provide a standoff
Chris
Perhaps some more racist southern militas will try something stupid, giving the feds two problems.
But I can't see anyone really being able to help the rebels out when the US is so powerful. Perhaps a few arms shipments.
OR, are their any nuclear weapons based in those states? That would provide a standoff
Chris
Chris, I belive that the AEC does have substantial fissionables at the Idaho National Engineering Lab(or some such name). Whether these are still there, and whether they are bomb-grade or even 'dirty' bomb material is not known to me.
I don't believe there'd be any chance of the rebels getting ahold of US missiles. The personnel of the bases which they're held at would destroy them before being captured. Even if they did manage to capture one, the rebels would never use it. Don't forget, they're Americans too. They don't want to destroy the control, but rather reform it.
"They don't want to destroy the control, but rather reform it."
But Walter, I thought you said they would eventually attempt secession rather than simply fight for "their rights as Americans." Therefore, if they can get hold of a nuclear device or two (and perhaps figure out how to actually use the thing), they might try to blackmail the US, or perhaps use one nuke on a judicious target (a US base where a huge army is massing) and keep one in reserve to smuggle into a major city should all be lost.
But Walter, I thought you said they would eventually attempt secession rather than simply fight for "their rights as Americans." Therefore, if they can get hold of a nuclear device or two (and perhaps figure out how to actually use the thing), they might try to blackmail the US, or perhaps use one nuke on a judicious target (a US base where a huge army is massing) and keep one in reserve to smuggle into a major city should all be lost.
Matt Quinn said:
They will eventually attempt secession. I just doubt that they'd use nuclear weapons on the United States. After all, they wouldn't want to destroy whole American cities, especially when they're trying to swing public opinion to their side. But I guess they could use it as a bargaining chip. A discrete note to the President that they have them. I'm fairly certain that any threat would be a bluff, though, and that the President would call that bluff.
geez, I go away for a week, and look at all this stuff that comes up on here..
first of all, I live in eastern OR, and I can tell you that this area is hardly bursting with anti-DC feeling... mostly, this area would love to have the Feds focus attention on them, so they could beg for lots of federal money; eastern OR is dirt poor, with one of the worst unemployment rates in the nation.
Native Americans: you would think that the western states would have lots of this ethnic group, but they really don't. According to my atlas, MT has a mere 56,000 (6% of the population), ID has only 17,000 (1.4%), and WY has 11,000 (2.3%). I haven't looked all that closely, but I think OK has more NAs than any other state...
Although the Rocky Mountain states are usually thought of as militia strongholds, I don't think it's because these states are so prone to it... the militia movements moved to these states because they are thinly populated, with lots of wilderness to play their silly wargames in. There is a lot of hostility towards DC in these states though, mainly because of the damage the environmentalist movement has done to logging and cattle economies; however, even with this, there is little love for the militia, who are seen as armed and dangerous loonies (when the Aryan Nations lost that big lawsuit several years ago, their neighbors were mainly overjoyed....)
first of all, I live in eastern OR, and I can tell you that this area is hardly bursting with anti-DC feeling... mostly, this area would love to have the Feds focus attention on them, so they could beg for lots of federal money; eastern OR is dirt poor, with one of the worst unemployment rates in the nation.
Native Americans: you would think that the western states would have lots of this ethnic group, but they really don't. According to my atlas, MT has a mere 56,000 (6% of the population), ID has only 17,000 (1.4%), and WY has 11,000 (2.3%). I haven't looked all that closely, but I think OK has more NAs than any other state...
Although the Rocky Mountain states are usually thought of as militia strongholds, I don't think it's because these states are so prone to it... the militia movements moved to these states because they are thinly populated, with lots of wilderness to play their silly wargames in. There is a lot of hostility towards DC in these states though, mainly because of the damage the environmentalist movement has done to logging and cattle economies; however, even with this, there is little love for the militia, who are seen as armed and dangerous loonies (when the Aryan Nations lost that big lawsuit several years ago, their neighbors were mainly overjoyed....)
Something no one has said yet is how will the regular Army react to this.
You will have troops in the federal Army from those state .
How many troops would be willing to fire on US citizens ?
Let us Say you have a Sr NCO in the !st Cav Div. From Idaho he adds 1000 lbs of suger in the fuel storage tanks of the Div . Well there goes the Vehicles for that Div. PS he is in charge of the fuel tanks .
I also could see West Mich. telling the Det. Area to Go to Hell at this time also .
you want to have some A-bomb for the Rebals how about a few crew members of B-1 's Being form those states and takeing ther aircraft with them?
And to add to the militarys problems Have a guy in finace screw with service mens pay records like have them get paid at 1960's pay .
I also could see some supply NCO sending WWII ammo to the troops first sent in . Or he might even find some ammo left over from the Spanish American War .
You could have lots of fun with the military in the time line .
You will have troops in the federal Army from those state .
How many troops would be willing to fire on US citizens ?
Let us Say you have a Sr NCO in the !st Cav Div. From Idaho he adds 1000 lbs of suger in the fuel storage tanks of the Div . Well there goes the Vehicles for that Div.
PS he is in charge of the fuel tanks .I also could see West Mich. telling the Det. Area to Go to Hell at this time also .
you want to have some A-bomb for the Rebals how about a few crew members of B-1 's Being form those states and takeing ther aircraft with them?
And to add to the militarys problems Have a guy in finace screw with service mens pay records like have them get paid at 1960's pay .
I also could see some supply NCO sending WWII ammo to the troops first sent in . Or he might even find some ammo left over from the Spanish American War .
You could have lots of fun with the military in the time line .
Chris
Banned
Humm, well..
There are only a few ways for this rebellion to suceed and they're not easy:
1) have enough other states, movements, milita and criminals/racists become active themselves, giving the feds other bushfires to stamp on.
2) somehow tie up the feds politically, like by having impeachment proceedings, lawsuits, demostations, a propoganda campaign
3) somehow capture enough SHORAD units to make the feds advantage in airpower liomited.
4) Get enough forign opinion on their side so the other nations will respond with santions on the US, which is clearly holding some states in bondage.
5), well, we've discussed using nukes in a standoff
Chris
There are only a few ways for this rebellion to suceed and they're not easy:
1) have enough other states, movements, milita and criminals/racists become active themselves, giving the feds other bushfires to stamp on.
2) somehow tie up the feds politically, like by having impeachment proceedings, lawsuits, demostations, a propoganda campaign
3) somehow capture enough SHORAD units to make the feds advantage in airpower liomited.
4) Get enough forign opinion on their side so the other nations will respond with santions on the US, which is clearly holding some states in bondage.
5), well, we've discussed using nukes in a standoff
Chris
Chris said:
I don't necessarily want the rebellion to succeed. I just want it to last for about 6-8 months at least. In other words, I don't want President Bentsen to send one armored division, which fights one battle, ending the rebellion.
It's not much, but you could also include Northern California in the "rebellion". Thier price? They get to form the State of Jefferson. Maybe not active participation, but helping to get material thru the Syskious to Oregon.
Very much so. A Public Radio Station, which has repeaters all over S.Ore & N.Cali calls itself Jefferson Public Radio. A lot of businesses use the name Jefferson in their names. They are a very "small l" libertarian bunch of folks. http://www.jeffersonstate.com The current motto is "Success, not secession". So the idea is thier, but they don't have the numbers yet. But given the big heavy handed government in this scenario, they just might.
- Status