So your position is that conservatives are, inherently, evil, warmongering terrorists with no shred of morality who would engage in unprovoked wars of aggression using biological weapons. And that “serious talk of secession is dangerous” because you specifically believe that conservatives are so deranged, so psychotic, so unhinged that they can’t possibly want to just live separate lives from liberals - not even when the explicit purpose of that is to commit crimes against humanity against their own populace by denying health care and social support and escalating racism, hate crimes, and even slavery for all I know. No, even that level of freedom isn’t enough for them; secession is simply a ruse to allow them to draw back, regroup, and then charge in screaming and spraying smallpox everywhere.
Seems legit.
Oh, and regarding the first paragraph, that’s what an army is for. Amazing how conservatives think the army is great and awesome when they think it’s on their side, and how they think it can be beaten by rabble with long guns as soon as it’s potentially against them.
It has crossed my mind that if the war ended with a patriot missile to the Neocon’s statehouse while in session, wiping out the politicians that were causing them trouble in the first place, things wouldn’t be quite the same as before.
But thinking more seriously, the stated reason why we let the red states leave in the first place is because they kept sending dickhead obstructionist representatives who kept trying to dismantle our institutions and roll back social progress. Which implies that once the split occurred, the unhindered congress could pass all manner of social and political reforms, fixing health care and policing and enacting measures against obstructionism and gerrymandering. Once all this is in place, were the red states to be retaken the would suddenly find themselves subject to the same reforms, which would almost certainly turn most of them purple or even blue.
My position is that Civil War II would be bloodier than Civil War I and in modern war without battle lines tanks aren’t as relevant as one would think.
It technically wouldn’t be a civil war. In fact, by seceding, the Neocon would have drawn battle lines - it wouldn’t be USians attacking themselves, it would be a hostile foreign nation sending squads of attackers across the border to invade. (And spread smallpox apparently, because conservatives gotta war crime I guess).
The last time that a hostile group engaged in a large-scale attack on american soil, there was widescale support for retaliation from both conservatives AND liberals, and what immediately followed was the destruction of both the country blamed for the attack and also another country who happened to be nearby who we just disliked the leader of - resulting in said leader being killed. Neocon would both be blamed for the attack and it’s established that we don’t like their leaders - we split the damn country just to get rid of them. Plus the entirety of Neocon would be within ready missile range from pretty much all sides.
Suffice to say, I don’t see the conservative fantasy of being able to grab their long guns and walk though the streets committing bloody murder as something that would play out. The US seems to be more into drone strikes against people in leadership roles these days. Mar-a-lago would be a smoking crater.
In the reality I reside in, Portland hasn’t seceded and subsequently engaged in terrorist attacks against the united states.
And with that I’m out for the night - I dunno where you are, but here it’s pretty late. Have fun dropping pithy one-liners about alternate realities in my absence.
octopus was positing that there would be a bloody “civil war” between Neocon and the US. I presumed that implied that not only was there a split, but that one country attacked the other. And since octopus was just talking about how the conservatives are stone cold killers and how the US army are a bunch of pantywaists, I presumed he meant that Neocon would the one launching the attack.(Presumably via an invading militia carrying long guns - and of course smallpox. Mustn’t forget the smallpox).
You are assuming you keep the whole military and every asset? Lol. You are assuming warfare, if it were to occur, would be Revolutionary War era tactics when every war in the modern era has included irregular warfare and asymmetric tactics.
You also make the common mistake of confusion a prediction for an advocation. I am against secession. I also don’t think the simplistic red/blue nonsense is in any form an accurate description of the US especially at the state level. C’mon man.
Do you think China or Russia is worried about making the OUSA mad so they wouldn’t trade with RSA or are you imagining RSA shooting at every ship that comes into port?
Is Asia going to start shipping things to the RSA deep ports through the Panama Canal? Gonna need a smaller ship. Doesn’t a majority of products from Asia go to the west coast and shipped overland?
That’s a very relative thing; the worst tanks in our inventory are probably M1A1 Abrams tanks, and the most recent are the M1A2C series. They all have turbine engines, composite armor, 120mm gun, thermal sights, etc…
And another consideration is that a very large proportion of US combat power is actually in the National Guard, not the Regular Army. So state units are unlikely to just cough up their equipment I’d think.
I would assume most Asian trade if through the west cost just like I would assume most South American trade is through the gulf ports while most Middle Eastern, African, and European trade mixes through the gulf and Eastern ports. What does that have to do with
I guess I was thinking about more of a hot civil war like 160 years ago. I think it would be a simple thing for the USA Navy, Coast Guard and or Air Force to put up a blockade on those ports, and I doubt any company would risk those cargo ships.
I guess this assumes that the US military remains mostly under control of ‘blue’ states.
But the risk would also be starting a war with whatever countries ships got threatened/seized/sunk.
And if the secession is not amicable (or even if it is) all stuff from Asia could either be prevented or taxed in such a way to make the new red states feel the pinch.
That makes sense the gulf of Mexico would be a lot easier to blockade that the east and west coast.
This I think is a fun one to follow up on. The cost of good from China would certainly increase for RUS but I think the cost of goods for the Eastern OUS would go up even more. Outside of the EU how many countries allow trade across their boarders without getting a piece for themselves. If the RUS was taxing each ground shipment both east bound and west bound across themselves the OUS would probably either have to go around them and pay a higher price or provide the RUS with Income for nothing.
Of course, I think, this is why it was brought up before to not allow RUS to span from ND to TX. Would Canada allow free trucking across it to help OUS or would they also want a piece of the pie?