Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:So it sounds like you have an issue with the State of NY and jurisidictional and sovereignty issues.

To put it mildly.

The key difference between the US and the Balklands is that the national borders of states in the Balklands is mostly a hodgepodge of tyrannical regimes, torn by thousand years long ethnic struggles and conflicts. They've been going at it with each other longer than the Jews and the Palestinians, hell longer than the Arabs and the Kurds!

While the US isn't perfect, we don't really have those particular problems.

"I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going take it any more!!"

Without proof or even a what/when/where statement I can only assume you are trolling. You've made no indications to the contrary.

LordofHats wrote:The key difference between the US and the Balklands is that the national borders of states in the Balklands is mostly a hodgepodge of tyrannical regimes, torn by thousand years long ethnic struggles and conflicts. They've been going at it with each other longer than the Jews and the Palestinians, hell longer than the Arabs and the Kurds!

While the US isn't perfect, we don't really have those particular problems.

Yes, it does, but they're only hundreds of years old, and the US has a common language. Think about the red blue division and ask yourself how bad things have to get before some yahoo gives a rebel yell and declares the US government has failed it's people. They have them already, but normally they're not taken seriously. This changes when a society is under pressure and people start getting desperate. Unemployment in George has passed the 20% mark, so stop and think about how desperate some of them are getting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

xole wrote:Without proof or even a what/when/where statement I can only assume you are trolling. You've made no indications to the contrary.

Where I've already given (frazz asked). When was today (as I've already said), and what should be pretty obvious.

Baron post something similiar to what your talking about. SO far I'm thinking Police Brutality might lead to a 2nd US Civil War because the citizenship is on the verge of...."something"

Jihadin wrote:Baron post something similiar to what your talking about. SO far I'm thinking Police Brutality might lead to a 2nd US Civil War because the citizenship is on the verge of...."something"

At which point I hope someone sane has the launch codes...

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Baron post something similiar to what your talking about. SO far I'm thinking Police Brutality might lead to a 2nd US Civil War because the citizenship is on the verge of...."something"

At which point I hope someone sane has the launch codes...

you mean...like me?

Jihadin wrote:Baron post something similiar to what your talking about. SO far I'm thinking Police Brutality might lead to a 2nd US Civil War because the citizenship is on the verge of...."something"

OK, sorry, the police brutality bit is technically off topic, it's a hold over from the original subject before it got shortened and revised.

In a nutshell, the actual topic is: Do you think that current building internal pressures on the US will eventually lead to it balkanzing or suffering a second civil war if no steps are taken to prevent it. Which seems to be the current trend.

At which point I hope someone sane has the launch codes...

Um...the people manning the controls might be to busy looking at porn or the console down to be reimage

BaronIveagh wrote:Yes, it does, but they're only hundreds of years old, and the US has a common language. Think about the red blue division and ask yourself how bad things have to get before some yahoo gives a rebel yell and declares the US government has failed it's people. They have them already, but normally they're not taken seriously. This changes when a society is under pressure and people start getting desperate. Unemployment in George has passed the 20% mark, so stop and think about how desperate some of them are getting.

What are they gonna do? A modern state isn't really as susceptible to rebellion as those of yore. Between the army, air force, and navy, the government has the means to maintain order even if people want to get rid of them. And frankly, in a democracy, once people get fed up sooner or later they'll probably start paying attention enough to vote intelligently.

The most likely scenario isn't an overthrow or a dissolution as much as a societal collapse, which is very different from the situation in the Balklands. Its also so removed from current reality that I don't see the point in considering it. Baring disaster (nuke blows up D.C. while all national leaders are there) I don't see the US becoming unstable.

The Civil War is a very different scenario, spawned by issues that predated the United States' formation and made possible by the relative weakness of the Federal government. It can't happen again. States are too financially dependent on the Feds, and there just isn't a significant portion of the population who hates the government in the abstract, they hate specific policies, or institutions, and politicians, but there's a rather large amount of blind faith in the government and its structures as a whole.

Which seems to be the current trend.

That's not the current trend at all...

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
At which point I hope someone sane has the launch codes...

BTW: I once heard this story, no idea if it's true, that Nixon wanted to be able to nuke an American city if it ever fell to the hippies.

BaronIveagh wrote:Where I've already given (frazz asked). When was today (as I've already said), and what should be pretty obvious.

An entire region isn't a where. Is this somewhere you live? You should be able to get much more secific than that. What time today? Why were you out? How many of them were there? Were there cop cars? Was this a savage beating?

LordofHats wrote:
What are they gonna do? A modern state isn't really as susceptible to rebellion as those of yore. Between the army, air force, and navy, the government has the means to maintain order even if people want to get rid of them. And frankly, in a democracy, once people get fed up sooner or later they'll probably start paying attention enough to vote intelligently.

You do realize that there's a key problem with your assumption: that the military and national guard remain loyal and will fight. Historically, the US has had a real problem with that when rebellions take place.

LordofHats wrote:
It can't happen again.

Famous last words?

LordofHats wrote:States are too financially dependent on the Feds, and there just isn't a significant portion of the population who hates the government in the abstract, they hate specific policies, or institutions, and politicians, but there's a rather large amount of blind faith in the government and its structures as a whole.

The problem is that the worse things get, and the more red v blue brinksmanship goes on, the higher that 'abstract hate' rises. The longer the government fails to do something, the more disillusioned and angry the populace gets.

SALUTE REPORT NOW TROOP!!!!

S- Size
A-Activity
L-Location
U-Uniform/identifying material
T-Time
E-Equipment

Jihadin wrote:SALUTE REPORT NOW TROOP!!!!

S- Size
A-Activity
L-Location
U-Uniform/identifying material
T-Time
E-Equipment

SALT-Ws are mo betta

Jihadin wrote:SALUTE REPORT NOW TROOP!!!!

S- Size
A-Activity
L-Location
U-Uniform/identifying material
T-Time
E-Equipment

two men, beating a woman, back alley behind a pizza shop off main, range about 50 yards, NYST colors on the uniform, though positive ID was not made due to range, time 10 ish (checked back, all gone on second pass), no car visible. Noted it odd as no SM was present, violence seemed a bit much, woman was native.

Did ask the SMs about it.

Edit: Just noticed dakka is annotating them Space Marines, which is funny, but it's Seneca Marshals.

BaronIveagh wrote:ou do realize that there's a key problem with your assumption: that the military and national guard remain loyal and will fight. Historically, the US has had a real problem with that when rebellions take place.

Generally speaking those employed by the government have a vested interest in its survival (and a lot of Americans are employed by the government, directly or indirectly). That and the mentality of military life is to follow orders, and of course, its nigh impossible that EVERYONE in the US would choose to rebel.

And no, the US has never had that problem. People assume that cause Lee and a bunch of famous generals joined the Confederacy that the Union had no one, just cause McClellan was atrociously bad at his job. Noting that there's only two rebellions in US history and only one of consequence and note, the one that had all the spiffy generals lost.

Famous last words?

Statement of reality. Most states, even with Fed support are in debt. Most of the states aren't capable of being independent entities because of the nature of the economic system. They're dependent on the US gov for most social programs and a huge amount of their funding.

The problem is that the worse things get, and the more red v blue brinksmanship goes on, the higher that 'abstract hate' rises. The longer the government fails to do something, the more disillusioned and angry the populace gets.

You assume that because the Repubs and the Dems like to yell at each other that there will be a rebellion. Welcome to world history. Opposing sides of politicial issues always yell at each other. It usually takes a major issue (slavery) to really cause violence to break out. The most common cause of civil war is not political disagreement on silly issues like Bob marrying Ted, they're caused by the succession of government power, which really just doesn't happen much in democracies. Government power transitions stably on a regular basis.

The illusion that red and blue folk hating each other is new is absurdist. Its not new at all. Hell it was worse in the early years, when Federalists walked into Whig offices and beat them.

The greater risk in this situation isn't the populace rebelling. Disillusioned voters don't rebel, they stop voting. That has the potential to cause serious disconnects between the populace and the government (something already noted by many about the US) but frankly, the disillusioned don't care. You assume that unhappy people, or angry people, inevitably rise up, which is a horribly false assumption.

That and the mentality of military life is to follow orders, and of course, its nigh impossible that EVERYONE in the US would choose to rebel

LoH yes we follow orders but there's an unlawful order and a lawful order. Lets not jump to the "US military will blindly follow orders" to accomplish the goals of the government.

@Baron. Keep an eye out on the news to see if it made it and then make a "creditable" report here. Perception is a "troll" Sorry Baron its what I see so far.

That's not really my point as much that the idea that everyone in the country will decide to rebel is absurd. The military, and its members, are invested in the governments survival and are more likely to side with it in a conflict than against it. Add in the mentality of the military and its even less likely. I'm not saying they're gonna form death squads, just that we're not gonna see some rebels rolling up on congress in M1A1's with air support from a carrier group.

EDIT: It's also not like we're gonna see the military being more loyal to a state than the government. The old days of the army being mostly a glorified militia are dead. State loyalty isn't what it was in 1860 and community loyalty isn't gonna produce enough unity to form effective resistance to government power.

The fact that this would happen is itself a discouraging factor to rebel, alongside numerous others.

LordofHats wrote:
And no, the US has never had that problem. People assume that cause Lee and a bunch of famous generals joined the Confederacy that the Union had no one, just cause McClellan was atrociously bad at his job. Noting that there's only two rebellions in US history and only one of consequence and note, the one that had all the spiffy generals lost.

The records for the US army from that period suggest a loss of almost a quarter of it's strength, though the loss of the Confederate records make exact numbers impossible. and I'm talking about when McDowell was in command, before McClellan. The units now equivalent to the National Guard went with their states over the Fed. Initially, only a handful of officers actually defected, since those 'famous generals' were mostly colonels and captains in the US army, however, following Bull Run, it became a much more serious issue.

LordofHats wrote:
Statement of reality. Most states, even with Fed support are in debt. Most of the states aren't capable of being independent entities because of the nature of the economic system. They're dependent on the US gov for most social programs and a huge amount of their funding.

Have you ever seen a politician fail to bite the hand that feeds it if they think it will get them votes?

LordofHats wrote:
It usually takes a major issue (slavery) to really cause violence to break out. The most common cause of civil war is not political disagreement on silly issues like Bob marrying Ted, they're caused by the succession of government power, which really just doesn't happen much in democracies. Government power transitions stably on a regular basis.

Historically, they're also caused by poor economic conditions and governments that fail to address them. It became a serious item of concern during the depression.

LordofHats wrote:
The greater risk in this situation isn't the populace rebelling. Disillusioned voters don't rebel, they stop voting. That has the potential to cause serious disconnects between the populace and the government (something already noted by many about the US) but frankly, the disillusioned don't care. You assume that unhappy people, or angry people, inevitably rise up, which is a horribly false assumption.

The history of mankind is littered with fallen states who's angry populaces rose up. While it might not be inevitable, based on history, the odds are not that long.

"Do you hear the people sing?
Singing a song of angry men?
It is the music of a people
Who will not be slaves again!
When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes!"
- Les Misérables



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:
@Baron. Keep an eye out on the news to see if it made it and then make a "creditable" report here. Perception is a "troll" Sorry Baron its what I see so far.

No prob, but I doubt it. We shut down I-76 with piles of burning tires and that barely made the local news. As I said, I wished I had a camera on me at the time. I know by now that if you post about something odd on the internet, it's 'pics or it didn't happen'.

Baron you live in Anaheim or something?

BaronIveagh wrote:The records for the US army from that period suggest a loss of almost a quarter of it's strength,

The US army in 1860 was puny. The Civil War can actually be credited with a huge build up of Federal power, including the growth of the Army from a bare bones organization more akin to militia into something more professional. The comparison isn't apt.

Have you ever seen a politician fail to bite the hand that feeds it if they think it will get them votes?

As fun as it is to insult politicians for being stupid, they're smarter than people give them credit for. They play the word games to get votes and then play the status quo game to stay there. State officials know administrative suicide when they see it, especially with such heavy dependencies on the Fed in most state systems.

The idea that states are going to succeed is a silly one. They effectively can't, and even if they did, we'd probably end up doing the same thing we did last time with even quicker results since the National Guard is no longer a state controlled entity and the US army isn't a militia.

Historically, they're also caused by poor economic conditions and governments that fail to address them. It became a serious item of concern during the depression.

And yet no one rebelled.

The history of mankind is littered with fallen states who's angry populaces rose up. While it might not be inevitable, based on history, the odds are not that long.

No its not. That's a relatively new phenomenon, historically speaking and you don't see much of it in developed states. It happens in undeveloped states, where rebellion is more a matter of succession of power than freeing the people, and in transitioning states. It's extremely rare for the peasant to rise up of his own accord. He usually gets help from some middling nobility or rising elites.

"Do you hear the people sing?
Singing a song of angry men?
It is the music of a people
Who will not be slaves again!
When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes!"
- Les Misérables

You chose to quote a piece written in the wake of the French Revolution and is in many ways about said Revolution? They didn't just rebel cause they were unhappy. They rebelled cause they were starving to death, and they'd been starving to death going on 400 years. That, and they'd just gone through about 300 years of non-stop war that bankrupted the state (the Seven-Years war in particular). That, and the French Revolution wasn't initiated by the peasants as much as it was by the bourgeoisie.

They also weren't a democracy and couldn't just vote out people they didn't like when times were bad.

What we have now is a time that's not so great but not atrocious. Unless things are really bad, or really good, people just don't vote much.

I can only own 1 ipad and 1 iphone, at this time? Rebellion!

It just isn't going to happen. And I doubt the remaining Indian population would fair any better under a new government than they do under the current one.

No one has anything to gain. What would we fight over? Gay Marriage? Taxes?

Native Americans are unfortunately caught in the ironic situation of being heavily dependent on the government that is the source of most of their problems (and not in the ways a lot of people think).

Jihadin wrote:Baron you live in Anaheim or something?

Nah, when I'm 'home' I live in Salamanca NY. And I just noticed I typed '76' and meant the Thruway.

If you have any questions about just how bad the relationship between New York and the Iroquois is, look into the events of May 18th 1997.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
The idea that states are going to succeed is a silly one. They effectively can't, and even if they did, we'd probably end up doing the same thing we did last time with even quicker results since the National Guard is no longer a state controlled entity and the US army isn't a militia.

Well, first of all, that's pretty disparaging to both the Army and Marine Corps of the time. Second, how well do you think, and I'll use an example, the Pennsylvania National Guard will react to a protracted insurgency in, say, Pittsburgh?

LordofHats wrote:
And yet no one rebelled.

Except the ones that did. The Association of Real Estate Taxpayers being the most well known group in the tax payers revolt of the 1930's. Granted, it was more 'mass Civil Disobedience' then 'armed rebellion' but...

LordofHats wrote:
No its not. That's a relatively new phenomenon, historically speaking and you don't see much of it in developed states. It happens in undeveloped states, where rebellion is more a matter of succession of power than freeing the people, and in transitioning states. It's extremely rare for the peasant to rise up of his own accord. He usually gets help from some middling nobility or rising elites.

You might cast a glance then on the Great Rebellion of 1381. Granted, it was unsuccessful, but actually uprisings are hardly a new thing.

LordofHats wrote:You chose to quote a piece written in the wake of the French Revolution and is in many ways about said Revolution? They didn't just rebel cause they were unhappy. They rebelled cause they were starving to death

What do you think is going to start happening in the US if employment keeps falling? Do you think the state can support 20%+ and climbing unemployment figures?

BaronIveagh wrote:What do you think is going to start happening in the US if employment keeps falling? Do you think the state can support 20%+ and climbing unemployment figures?

Done it before. We can sure do it again.

So lemme get this straight: The US is more divided now than it was in the 60s and early 70s? You had huge numbers of people marching on the streets demanding equal rights, a massive counter-culture youth movement engaging in civil disobedience/drug revolution and political leaders being capped left, right and center, and you think it's worse NOW?!

xole wrote:
Done it before. We can sure do it again.

Actually, no we didn't The most the US has ever survived was 23% and at the time people acted like it was the end of the world.

Albatross wrote:So lemme get this straight: The US is more divided now than it was in the 60s and early 70s? You had huge numbers of people marching on the streets demanding equal rights, a massive counter-culture youth movement engaging in civil disobedience/drug revolution and political leaders being capped left, right and center, and you think it's worse NOW?!

You left out an unpopular war. And, two reasons: One, while those things were all very impressive, the majority of the American population was not affected directly by most of those events. John Q Public was not worried about how to feed his family due to the Civil Rights movement. At the time, the US was enjoying a high degree of financial prosperity Two, the majority of the politicians at the time tried to calm events not fan the flames higher (there were noted exceptions). Further, at the time there was still the somewhat unifying possibility of global thermonuclear war.

The reason that you do not see people in the streets right now is two fold. One, there has not been a unifying event yet. Usually these things do require a spark. Two, apathy in the US has grown due to years of prosperity. Once something happens that shakes the US out of it's apathy, God help whoever gets caught in the path of events.