Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
On War and Warfare Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Blue V. Red State
pendell    11/23/2004 9:35:02 AM
Just read Mike Robel's tongue-in-cheek breakdown of a potential Blue v. red US Civil war and I wanted to add two points that I think he missed: 1. Omission of nuclear weapons. If I were CINCBLUE I would most assuredly go for a nuclear deterrent to offset the massive disadvantage I faced in conventional forces. Specifically, I'd grab all the nukes on my territory I could and explain that we would use them in a "massive retaliation" if our territorial integrity was violated. We'll see if Red wants to exchange most of their cities to get us back. The hope, of course, is that Red will let us leave peacefully rather than risk an Armageddon that will have no winners. "All we ask is to be left alone" -- that was Jefferson Davis' line, and if he'd had the ability to destroy the US, he just might have made it stick. 2. Omission of Canada. Blue should either join or annex Canada. This will give it the interior lines it needs -- rathe than three separate disjointed islands it becomes a single cohesive "hand" with three fingers stretching south towards Redland. Heh .. that would be interesting, if Blue invades Canada and Red intervenes on Canada's side -- should be a very short three-way battle... Respectfully, Brian P.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
CJH    RE:Blue V. Red State   3/13/2005 9:19:43 PM
Since the thing that makes the blue states blue states is a strong entitlement mentality a blue state strategy would have to consist of an immediate appeal to France or maybe the EU, China, Canada and the UN. Seriously, can you actually see blue state people in the woods with guns and no booz?
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics