- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Modern day Civil War: Hypothetical.
Posted on 1/23/16 at 3:31 pm to TulaneUVA
Posted on 1/23/16 at 3:31 pm to TulaneUVA
quote:
I say the south due to large O&G presence (refineries and Chem plants). Also, the south has maintained a strong hold on arms collection and rights.
Plus the South has Nick Saban....there's that.
Posted on 1/23/16 at 3:32 pm to TulaneUVA
quote:
Or some idea where the southern states felt disenfranchised and wanted separation.
I think the only southern state the North would go to war over is Florida, on account of the beaches and golf courses. As for the rest of the South: well, most folks up north think the South is a poverty-stricken, backwards land of red necks and fundamentalist crazies of various persuasions. I think the North would, for the most part, say Good Riddance.
Posted on 1/23/16 at 3:39 pm to Mars duMorgue
quote:
Then what are they fighting over? What's the motivation?
The proper way to address a room full of people.
Posted on 1/23/16 at 3:40 pm to SurfTide
quote:
You've clearly never lived in upstate New York or Pennsylvania.
I can't think of a conflict where these currently armed people decide to attack the south rather than join.
Posted on 1/23/16 at 3:44 pm to TulaneUVA
quote:
Why would I want to? The idea of living in central Yankeedom is repulsing.
Because other than cold weather and accent differences, upstate New York is basically the same as any southern state. They drink lots of beer, grill lots of meat, are a little too obsessed with football (although it's the Bills instead of a college team), enjoy being outdoors, hunting, driving 4-wheelers, etc.
This post was edited on 1/23/16 at 4:04 pm
Posted on 1/23/16 at 3:44 pm to TulaneUVA
Now imagine if the moon was made of cheese!
Posted on 1/23/16 at 3:46 pm to Mars duMorgue
quote:
think the North would, for the most part, say Good Riddance
I think there is a serious question as to whether the North would mount another invasion and occupation to prevent the South leaving. Of course the energy infrastructure is largely Southern, (but much less so than it was 15 years ago), so that might tip the scales.
And there easily as many hunters in the Northeast and Midwest as in the South, they're just smaller in terms of percentage of population.
This post was edited on 1/23/16 at 3:50 pm
Posted on 1/23/16 at 3:52 pm to TulaneUVA
Stupid question. You're trying to ask me and my baws if a bunch of yuppie fricks could take us out? 
Posted on 1/23/16 at 3:55 pm to fr33manator
quote:
The proper way to address a room full of people.
Thems and us'ns will never agree on this.
Since there are no statues of grammarians to be torn down in recognition of our suffering our hands are really forced. No y'all, no peace.
This post was edited on 1/23/16 at 4:00 pm
Posted on 1/23/16 at 3:58 pm to Charlie Arglist
All the SEC West coaches would be generals of the new confederate model army. But damn it all, the tide of the war would turn at Miles Charge.
Posted on 1/23/16 at 4:01 pm to TulaneUVA
I know this is hypothetical, but there are just too many differences between today and back then to answer this question. For instance, the west coast has a ton of military assets (subs, nuclear missiles, carriers, etc). Do they just sit the war out, or do they join a side?
The nuclear element basically renders the argument mute. It would either become a Cold War between the sides, or they would both nuke each other into oblivion, paving the way for Mexico's rise as the next global superpower.
The south now has several large cities which really aren't that "southern" anymore (at least in terms of demographics) such as Houston, New Orleans, Charlotte, Atlanta, etc. Which side do these cities pick, keeping in mind the large percentages of their populations who are from other regions (particularly the north).
In a general sense, however, I don't see the south winning a rematch. The economy is heavily dependent on oil, back then it was cotton. I assume the US would move to prevent the export of oil through alliances with foreign powers, and then slowly overcome the south by way of superior population and industry, just like the first time.
I don't doubt that the average southerner is still a tougher and superior fighter than their northern counterparts, but time and again the US has overcome superior militaries through sheer numbers, money, and industrial capabilities (see Germany, Japan, the South, etc)
The nuclear element basically renders the argument mute. It would either become a Cold War between the sides, or they would both nuke each other into oblivion, paving the way for Mexico's rise as the next global superpower.
The south now has several large cities which really aren't that "southern" anymore (at least in terms of demographics) such as Houston, New Orleans, Charlotte, Atlanta, etc. Which side do these cities pick, keeping in mind the large percentages of their populations who are from other regions (particularly the north).
In a general sense, however, I don't see the south winning a rematch. The economy is heavily dependent on oil, back then it was cotton. I assume the US would move to prevent the export of oil through alliances with foreign powers, and then slowly overcome the south by way of superior population and industry, just like the first time.
I don't doubt that the average southerner is still a tougher and superior fighter than their northern counterparts, but time and again the US has overcome superior militaries through sheer numbers, money, and industrial capabilities (see Germany, Japan, the South, etc)
This post was edited on 1/23/16 at 4:02 pm
Posted on 1/23/16 at 4:04 pm to SurfTide
I think a US civil war in 2016 would essentially be a guerilla war that would stretch for generations and basically have no possible organized surrender or possibility of victory for either side.
Posted on 1/23/16 at 4:08 pm to SurfTide
quote:
I don't doubt that the average southerner is still a tougher and superior fighter than their northern counterparts,
The East Coast got their asses pretty thoroughly kicked the first time around. But all the while, Grant was building and training an army of Midwestern farmers that were a match for the Southern troops. Its not that South is tougher than North, but Country is tougher than City.
Posted on 1/23/16 at 4:21 pm to Methuselah
quote:
Anglo Saxons always beat the Celtic/Gallic peoples.
If that were in any manner true, then, Ireland, Wales, Scotland would no longer be in existence because the Angles, Saxons and Jutes would have conquered all of these Gallic tribes.
Posted on 1/23/16 at 4:46 pm to TigerstuckinMS
quote:
The only former Union state that has nuclear weapons stationed there is Nevada. Nuclear weapons are stored at Nellis, but I don't think they're operational.
Wrong. There are no nukes at Nellis.
quote:
Louisiana has the B-52H wing at Barksdale and Georgia has the Atlantic SSBN fleet at King's Bay, so two former Confederate states house operational nuclear weapons.
Missouri has the only operational B-2s and there are boomer subs in Bangor, ME. And no nukes at Barksdale either.
Posted on 1/23/16 at 4:51 pm to Charlie Arglist
quote:
Plus the South has Nick Saban....there's that.

Posted on 1/23/16 at 5:03 pm to TulaneUVA
Whatever side has Mississippi and Arkansas will lose.
Fact.
Fact.
Posted on 1/23/16 at 5:04 pm to SurfTide
quote:
quote:
It's not an idea. It's fact
You've clearly never lived in upstate New York or Pennsylvania.
This. Western PA loves their guns every bit as much as the Deep South.
Popular
Back to top


2







