Second American Civil War - 1993
- Thread starter Beck Reilly
- Start date
- Status
Street_Disciple
Banned
.......................................................................................
Grimm Reaper said:
INEL, now INEEL has over 48 nuclear reactors and has the nation's only breeder reactor. But, they don't need to make the material, they can just get Fairchild AFB outside of Spokane WA with all the B-52's and hydrogen bombs/tactical nukes they want. In real life, the 92nd bombing wing at Fairchild became a refuleing wing after 1993.
Sorry... It's really nicely worked, but I just view this as impossible unless there are some MAJOR changes in the US government in the decades preceeding the war in the 1990s. The screams that the US government is too large and interfering with the rights of the people was mostly just hot air until the US Patriot Act; other than gun nuts, who view a ban on military-grade assault rifles as wholly against what the Founding Fathers wanted, people don't view the federal government as some outside force (ask a hundred Americans who the "leader of the government" is, and 99 will respond with the name of the president, not the governor).
And even IF Idaho and the like were to break out in rebellion, that rebellion would be annihilated fairly swiftly (and by fairly swiftly, I mean two weeks, tops). Unless the US didn't win the Cold War (which might be your POD, btw), then it built up the technology that the USSR couldn't compete against; and since not ALL pieces of technology are housed at every single NG base, and since the NG and reservists aren't nearly as well trained as the standing army (a major complaint about the Iraq war from reservists coming back), it just won't happen. Most of the population sees this as a vile rebellion against their beloved government (and most people LOVE the government. And I mean love it; the US might be the most nationalistic of all democracies on this earth), and once the airborne infantry come in, its a shut case. The rebels would have small-arms fire, possibly a few tanks and even planes. The US has a lot more of all of those; tank divisions would soon be rolling across the state(s) in revolt.
And even IF Idaho and the like were to break out in rebellion, that rebellion would be annihilated fairly swiftly (and by fairly swiftly, I mean two weeks, tops). Unless the US didn't win the Cold War (which might be your POD, btw), then it built up the technology that the USSR couldn't compete against; and since not ALL pieces of technology are housed at every single NG base, and since the NG and reservists aren't nearly as well trained as the standing army (a major complaint about the Iraq war from reservists coming back), it just won't happen. Most of the population sees this as a vile rebellion against their beloved government (and most people LOVE the government. And I mean love it; the US might be the most nationalistic of all democracies on this earth), and once the airborne infantry come in, its a shut case. The rebels would have small-arms fire, possibly a few tanks and even planes. The US has a lot more of all of those; tank divisions would soon be rolling across the state(s) in revolt.
I'm digging this up again. This hasn't been worked on in a while, so I thought I might stir things up and see what comes out of it. I want to see new ideas and arguments for and against. And maybe a few modifications. I'll just respond to this latest post.
I say that erosions have been more incremental. Even major parts of the Patriot Act haven't been used yet. It is a testament to the resiliency of the system and the Founders conceived a set-up that protected very well against major forms of tyranny, but there were flaws. And they have grown. You don't notice them until you get up close.
Government makes up about 40% of the American economy. Federalism is all but dead, as post-ACW, the States were viewed as subordinate political entities. The ability of Federal gov't to restrict the use of private property through agencies like the EPA is frightening; Bruce Willis was just recently forced to pay $21,000 in fines for violating wetland laws for clearing a half-acre island in a pond on a piece of his property in Idaho (story here). The act violates the process of imminent domain and centuries of common law on private property and the only reaction that most people sum up is a cynical sigh.
Congress has doled out huge parts of its delegated powers to, at last I heard (which was quite a while ago), sixty regulatory agencies, which are usually called the "Fourth Branch" of government. They, on a daily basis, circumvent the institution of Congress and agencies like OSHA drive small businesses in to bankruptcy by instituting obtuse safety standards which have no practical basis and cost tens of thousands of dollars, on average, to implement.
Or what about the FCC? Did you know that Bell Labs developed the technology for mobile phones in the 40s? And yet they didn't grant them a license until the 80s (article here). The FDA is no different. I forget the name of the product, but it is a fluid that can be enriched with oxygen and and taken in by the lungs, with profound medical applications. It has been around for decades and been proven to be harmless--non-conductive of electricity, non-flammable, non-poisonous, etc.--and yet it has never been approved by the FDA. Their infamous for preventing potentially life-saving drugs from hitting the market for years or decades. How many thousands of lives have been snuffed out because of that?
I'm not even going to get in to the welfare state, because that is another thread in and of itself, but who here would say that it is a sufficient solution? The constitutional basis for it is sketchy at best.
And then you consider the courts and "judicial activism." Many rulings clearly violate laws enacted by State legislatures and Congress, taking the law out of the hands of duly elected representatives, and going so far as to cite decisions of courts in other countries, despite the fact they have no jurisdiction in the United States and fall well outside the legal criteria of a "competent jurisdiction," e.g. a multi-national/international court/tribunal/body the US has participated in or consented to by treaty.
Coming full circle to the Patriot Act, the fact that it was passed in the first place with out copious examination of its constitutionality is indicative of how far we've come. Though admittedly, parts of it have been ruled unconstitutional as of late.
My intention is not to rail against gov't injustices, though I have done a pretty good job of that
, but to show how precarious of a position we are in. Granted, none of our core freedoms have been violated as a whole and the system of justice in this country has a decent track record, but that is on momentum, good planning by generations past, and dumb luck or divine providence (take your pick).
I think if you truly want to spark a revolution or something close to it, you can have more major changes over a long period of time, as you say, or take a dramatic turn toward rapid government expansion over a short period. In the first ARW was sparked by a minority of the population and built up momentum. The same thing can happen here. But it will take something BIG and SHOCKING to get the public to wake up out of their apathy.
I have to take issue with several statements here. And mind you, I am coming from the view point of talking fairly often with veterans and doing a good bit of reading on the subject, so I may be speaking from experience, but i am only standing on the shoulders of those who know far better than I.
One, love of country and love of government are two different things. The reason why Americans identify with gov't in general is that there is the vestigial feeling it is our own; the idea of the town square. Yet despite that, there is always a natural feeling of distrust and cynicism toward it. Might make a very interesting study in sociology. The people that truly love government, if there can be such a thing, are the people living off of the public coffer.
Second, the comments about NG and Reserve are just plain untrue. Standard training is, well, standard across the board. And you'll find NG units better polished in training than some regular Army units. It is more a matter of practice among individual units than anything else.
On the equipment front, I can agree, but there are several fallacies in your thinking. Technology is a factor, but it is not going to play that significant of a roll in a second ARW when the technological gap is so close. And considering that the State forces have access to operational info about the technology--how to counteract and mitigate it--means that it will be thrown to the margins. Besides, they can equip themselves with off-the-shelf technology which can come pretty darn close to closing that gap.
And you forget that States have their own tank divisions: The idea behind the NG is that it is a mutually shared, but State-based reserve to the regular Army. In major weapon systems, they share a lot of the same or similar equipment. There are even NG Special Forces units, the 19th and the 25th SF groups, if I am not mistaken, and those are spread over some States that might be sympathetic to their plight.
Now, I'm done talking. Critique and expand, since quite a few people want to see this scenario continue.
Knight Of Armenia said:
I say that erosions have been more incremental. Even major parts of the Patriot Act haven't been used yet. It is a testament to the resiliency of the system and the Founders conceived a set-up that protected very well against major forms of tyranny, but there were flaws. And they have grown. You don't notice them until you get up close.
Government makes up about 40% of the American economy. Federalism is all but dead, as post-ACW, the States were viewed as subordinate political entities. The ability of Federal gov't to restrict the use of private property through agencies like the EPA is frightening; Bruce Willis was just recently forced to pay $21,000 in fines for violating wetland laws for clearing a half-acre island in a pond on a piece of his property in Idaho (story here). The act violates the process of imminent domain and centuries of common law on private property and the only reaction that most people sum up is a cynical sigh.
Congress has doled out huge parts of its delegated powers to, at last I heard (which was quite a while ago), sixty regulatory agencies, which are usually called the "Fourth Branch" of government. They, on a daily basis, circumvent the institution of Congress and agencies like OSHA drive small businesses in to bankruptcy by instituting obtuse safety standards which have no practical basis and cost tens of thousands of dollars, on average, to implement.
Or what about the FCC? Did you know that Bell Labs developed the technology for mobile phones in the 40s? And yet they didn't grant them a license until the 80s (article here). The FDA is no different. I forget the name of the product, but it is a fluid that can be enriched with oxygen and and taken in by the lungs, with profound medical applications. It has been around for decades and been proven to be harmless--non-conductive of electricity, non-flammable, non-poisonous, etc.--and yet it has never been approved by the FDA. Their infamous for preventing potentially life-saving drugs from hitting the market for years or decades. How many thousands of lives have been snuffed out because of that?
I'm not even going to get in to the welfare state, because that is another thread in and of itself, but who here would say that it is a sufficient solution? The constitutional basis for it is sketchy at best.
And then you consider the courts and "judicial activism." Many rulings clearly violate laws enacted by State legislatures and Congress, taking the law out of the hands of duly elected representatives, and going so far as to cite decisions of courts in other countries, despite the fact they have no jurisdiction in the United States and fall well outside the legal criteria of a "competent jurisdiction," e.g. a multi-national/international court/tribunal/body the US has participated in or consented to by treaty.
Coming full circle to the Patriot Act, the fact that it was passed in the first place with out copious examination of its constitutionality is indicative of how far we've come. Though admittedly, parts of it have been ruled unconstitutional as of late.
My intention is not to rail against gov't injustices, though I have done a pretty good job of that
, but to show how precarious of a position we are in. Granted, none of our core freedoms have been violated as a whole and the system of justice in this country has a decent track record, but that is on momentum, good planning by generations past, and dumb luck or divine providence (take your pick).I think if you truly want to spark a revolution or something close to it, you can have more major changes over a long period of time, as you say, or take a dramatic turn toward rapid government expansion over a short period. In the first ARW was sparked by a minority of the population and built up momentum. The same thing can happen here. But it will take something BIG and SHOCKING to get the public to wake up out of their apathy.
Knight Of Armenia said:
I have to take issue with several statements here. And mind you, I am coming from the view point of talking fairly often with veterans and doing a good bit of reading on the subject, so I may be speaking from experience, but i am only standing on the shoulders of those who know far better than I.
One, love of country and love of government are two different things. The reason why Americans identify with gov't in general is that there is the vestigial feeling it is our own; the idea of the town square. Yet despite that, there is always a natural feeling of distrust and cynicism toward it. Might make a very interesting study in sociology. The people that truly love government, if there can be such a thing, are the people living off of the public coffer.
Second, the comments about NG and Reserve are just plain untrue. Standard training is, well, standard across the board. And you'll find NG units better polished in training than some regular Army units. It is more a matter of practice among individual units than anything else.
On the equipment front, I can agree, but there are several fallacies in your thinking. Technology is a factor, but it is not going to play that significant of a roll in a second ARW when the technological gap is so close. And considering that the State forces have access to operational info about the technology--how to counteract and mitigate it--means that it will be thrown to the margins. Besides, they can equip themselves with off-the-shelf technology which can come pretty darn close to closing that gap.
And you forget that States have their own tank divisions: The idea behind the NG is that it is a mutually shared, but State-based reserve to the regular Army. In major weapon systems, they share a lot of the same or similar equipment. There are even NG Special Forces units, the 19th and the 25th SF groups, if I am not mistaken, and those are spread over some States that might be sympathetic to their plight.
Now, I'm done talking. Critique and expand, since quite a few people want to see this scenario continue
.The Feds would still have a major advantage in terms of weaponry and training, even if the National Guard units revolt along with the militia types. NG units will keep it from being a total wipeout, but the MALL folks have a long road ahead.
Remember, the Feds have nukes too. Even if MALL can capture nukes in-state, the encrypion is so tough that it'd be very difficult for them to use the nukes, except possibly as a means of turning popular opinion against the Feds (threaten to use it on a city, even if they really cannot, and the fearful populace, ignorant of MALL's true capabilities, demands the government negotiate).
Remember, the Feds have nukes too. Even if MALL can capture nukes in-state, the encrypion is so tough that it'd be very difficult for them to use the nukes, except possibly as a means of turning popular opinion against the Feds (threaten to use it on a city, even if they really cannot, and the fearful populace, ignorant of MALL's true capabilities, demands the government negotiate).
Matt Quinn said:
Granted, in overall numbers and infrastructure, they have the advantage. The dis-advantage of training, however, can be significantly mitigated. The difference between NG and regular Army is the difference between working full-time and part-time at a job. You switch over to full-time and you get the needed practice. But that does take time, which is not exactly on the side of MALL.
Matt Quinn said:
Better to just build the nukes themselves. The information is publicly available and they have access to all the vital infrastructure that is a pre-requisite to a nuclear program. But realistically, neither side is going to use nukes for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the backlash in opinion.
On a side note, I think the most likely allies are the French, Chinese, Israelis, and certain Russian factions, like organized crime or ultra-nationals who want Alaska.
katchen
Banned
Douglas Blackmon (Slavery by Any Other Name) and Max Boot (I forget the name of his recent work on comparative guerrilla war and terrorism) would argue that the US has already had a second Civil War--and the rebels won. The South went through what amounted to a guerrilla insurgency during the period from 1877 to 1900 which resulted in Republicans being kicked out of government and African Americans who previously had quite a bit of political power, systematically terrorized and intimidated into giving up the right to vote and reduced to a servile, second class status.
And Southern Whites did it by organizing "Reedeemer" terrorist militias which had both political and military wings, comparable to the contemporary Serbian Black h Hand or the slightly later IRA-Sinn Fein movement in Ireland., Ir tidat;s Takebab, We dib;t kuje ti adnut that terrorism can be successful, but it can be and when it is, it is usually not called terrorism. In the case of the South, the terrorists succeeded until the 1940s because their goals were limited to local autonomy--control of state and local government within a Federal system,much as the Kurds now have in Iraq. States Rights (or wrongs!). It was not until World War Ii and the universal draft that extended to African Americans that the Southern System truly began to break down.
The question for today is, will the next civil war start over liberals trying to force their system on conservatives or conservatives trying to force their system on liberals?
And Southern Whites did it by organizing "Reedeemer" terrorist militias which had both political and military wings, comparable to the contemporary Serbian Black h Hand or the slightly later IRA-Sinn Fein movement in Ireland., Ir tidat;s Takebab, We dib;t kuje ti adnut that terrorism can be successful, but it can be and when it is, it is usually not called terrorism. In the case of the South, the terrorists succeeded until the 1940s because their goals were limited to local autonomy--control of state and local government within a Federal system,much as the Kurds now have in Iraq. States Rights (or wrongs!). It was not until World War Ii and the universal draft that extended to African Americans that the Southern System truly began to break down.
The question for today is, will the next civil war start over liberals trying to force their system on conservatives or conservatives trying to force their system on liberals?
- Status