On the Looming Balkanization of the United States of America

a reply to: Stevenmonet

Interesting, but I think you're taking the position the Military would take in such a conflict for granted.

Perhaps we will see.

a reply to: cmdrkeenkid
Because there were so many competing claims over various pieces of territory, the original Balkanisation process could not be managed without a series of wars. These came to a climax about a century ago with a rapid series of three wars- The First Balkan War, the Second Balkan War, and the First World War (which started off as a Third Balkan War and got expanded globally by the German General Staff).

The worst-affected area was Macedonia, where the ethnic groups were so mixed together that "macedoine" became a cookery term defined as "a mixture or medley of unrelated things". Even now, Greece owns half of Macedonia and would be ready to start a war for the other half.

In other words, if you are expecting a Balkanisation process, you should give up any idea of trying to predict the final boundaries in advance. In the war over the control of Arizona and New Mexico, how far west will the gunmen of Texas be able to hold the mobs of California? Who knows until the experiment has been tried?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Nope I'm using historical perspective.

I sited the whiskey rebellion, civil war, civil rights movement, and current global war on terrorism.

These were all instances where the military could and or have gone against their comander and cheif and official chain of command, but in all of these instances the bulk of our forces upheld their oaths and the forces in support of our constitutional government and the official chain of command won.

All I did was point out the difference between the conditions of the last most successful attempt at balkinization and today.

I was able to change my initial perspective by admiting new facts.

By taking into account our constant forward global deployment of military assets, modern command and control, intelligence, and digital infrastructure all required to fight global threats focused on american insurectionest states I was able to change my conclusion.

I went from heck ya it's happening and soon to nope no way can't happen until America's global war fighting capabilities are destroyed.

The very tools used to project American power globally prevent any long term succesful insurrection.

I even showed how simple friend or foe and strategic comand and control systems make a modern day fort Sumpter improbable.

At best American insurectionest would have access to small arms. No advanced weapons systems such as tanks or jets cruise missles you name it. Especially no strategic weapons such as nukes.

No nation would ali with them because our international fighting capabilities and ability to deploy strategic deterrence aka mutual nuclear destruction would still be intact.

Any insurectionest force would be in effect fighting blind with small arms against the most modern advanced fighting force in the world today.

Even lincoln was able to win against odds way worse than that, and still win a second term.

I have no reason to believe the modern circumstances favor an insurectionest force any more today than in lincolns time. In fact I have decided they make it all but impossible.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

The modern military capabilities of the United States compare with the Whiskey Rebellion and even the Civil War like a firestorm to a candle-flame, i.e. not at all.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice states quite clearly that no soldier is required to follow an unlawful order: further, the oath every member takes is to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

... and the Military leadership will decide what and who is acting against the Constitution, frankly. My point to you is that you seem to be assuming which "side" in this coming bruhaha the military will take.

I don't believe that's as clear or as clean as you seem to think.

a reply to: Gryphon66

My point is military leadership is not going to make a uniform decision most generals sided with lincoln some didn't and the forces siding with the constitutional government prevailed.

Any attempt at a modern day fort sumpter by any insurectionest general would be fighting blind with small arms against those who remain loyal to our constitutional comander and cheif.

Even if they somehow got their hands on advanced weapons systems guess what.
Tank no worky, plane no fly, missile no launch.

Why?????

Codes were changed sorry. No access to GPS. No live sat feeds, and no secure command and control networks to share real time info.

The comander of an aircraft carrier would be sailing blind and all but deffenseless if his air wing wont fly, automated tracking and comand and controll software wont work and no access to GPS or sat intel.

Better hope they have a manual backup for every digital system on board, a celestial navigator, and manual systems to maintain all life support and power systems.

So yes some people in the military could side with the rebels even half of the United states armed forces could rebel. And the civil war is proof if that.

They just wont have any advanced weapons systems advanced comand and control, real time Intel, or GPS navigation.

So yes as I stated it would be small arms vs the most advanced military in the world. It would be put down easier than the whiskey rebelion and end way faster than the last civil war where the constitutional forces faced a near peer adversary and won in 4 years.

Convince me that a general or admiral can sever his link to chain of command and maintain full battlefield capability absent his official chain of command.

It's not going to happen he will be shut down with the flip of a switch. His access to the modern command and controll network will be severed and his most advanced weapons systems will be unable to designate friend from foe. He will have zero satalite relay or real time Intel. gathering capabilities. No GPS navigation and he would in effect be opperating blind in enemy teritory.

So every other general could be a rebel and with today's tech all his fun toys would paper weights while the forces remaining loyal to our constitutional government will have every modern advantage and tool at their disposal.

How do you not get this yet. As long as America's military is a modern globally deployed fighting force relying on real time Intel and advanced satalite based command and control networks including friend or foe and GPS guidance technology then balkanization of the United states is impossible.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

As I said, you're assuming that military leadership will believe that the "Commander in Chief" is issuing lawful commands.

IF they are not lawful, these commands will not be followed.

You seem to be assuming that I don't understand something about your argument, which, in point of fact, I've made many times in reference to idiots who think they are going stand up against the government with a shotgun.

Try to hear what I'm saying: you're assuming that the Military is going to side with the side you favor. I believe you are mistaken in that.

Now, if you'd like to address that, have at it. If not, thanks for the convo.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You keep saying they. Who is they? Every general, and admiral all the way down to the lowest ranked private all agreeing on ignoring their comander and cheif?

That didn't happen with the civil war and would never happen in america.

My point is that the us military follows a rigorous chain of command. There is no way for any general or admiral to sever their link to that chain of command and maintain near peer adversary status with one who is operating within that chain of command.

No way you get every General and admiral to disobey.

Any who did would be rendered impotent with a few key strokes.

That is my point. Yet you keep going back to what if they decide the order is not constitutional.

K fine define they!

Who is they!

Because last I checked our United states military is a massive conglomerate and not some monolith. Civics cant agree on politics, but somehow the military as a whole will make some uniform monolithic decision to subvert their chain of comand as one monolithic body?

Come on man realy?

Is that your argument. If so just say it so I can laugh at you.

Otherwise understand that each link in the chain of comand can be replaced and any disloyalty to the chain of command would result in an inability to fight as a near peer against those within it.

Yep Lincoln freed the slaves and every general sides with him.....nope. some did some didn't.

It would be the same today.

Only difference is global forward deployment and the reliance on satalite based command and control networks gps navigation and friend or foe identification systems you need to fight as a near peer on a modern battlefield would be denied to any insurectionest general/admiral should they decide to breach their chain of comand.

This doesn’t need to be so complicated, the United States already IS Balkanized into 50 countries (another word for states). All we need to do is go back to the original founding father’s idea of a United Countries of America, where each country rules itself and are kept together through a decentralized and weak constitutional government. Then everyone can live the way they like. Which was the whole idea in the first place!

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid

Igor Panarin's Map

Source

That map is laughable, funniest thing I've seen all day.
Yes these maps are funny haha.

If the USA is hit by an asteroid, comet or after nuclear war then yeah it could look like that.

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid
a reply to: Arizonaguy

Your post sneaked in while I was typing up the responses in my previous post. Sorry to leave you out! However, it's clear yet again that another person has not actually read the thread, and it's you! I look forward to your response after you take another peek at what I had to say.

I'm not going to read your OP in depth when one of the maps has a big black cock and balls inserted from Mississippi to Georgia

a reply to: Subsonic

You seem confused about the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the US Constitution.

The "weak collection of states" proved to be worthless and would NOT have held against the British, the French or any other power.

It's the first few pages of any US Civics book. /shrug

a reply to: Gryphon66

Nope not confused at all. If you’re honestly suggesting that there is no more central planning and federal power now than there was in the early years of the US, I don’t know what to tell you. That’s just objectively false. Nearly everything pushed on us at the federal level is unconstitutional, it’s just that the states are far too weak to do anything about it.

I’d suggest reading “The Real Lincoln”, it’s an eye opening account of how weak federal government was prior to Lincoln’s reign of terror on the states.

Unless there's another civil military war the USA won't split up.

Near future changes I can see would be:

Puerto Rico statehood (Democrat driven)
Washington DC statehood (Democrat driven)
Splitting of California into 2-3 states (Republican driven)
Splitting of NY into 2 states (Republican driven)

Haven't been in here for a few months. Just poked back in when I heard about the red banner through the grapevine. Didn't mean to leave some of you who took the time to respond without acknowledgement.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I definitely agree. Texas would be able to go it alone. They may face some territorial and border disputes, but they would readily organize and keep most of their borders. The western and southern borders would be hardest to defend. It wouldn't shock me if anything west of the Mississippi River would be ceded to the new Republic as well.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I agree. Balkanization would hardly be bloodless, but it would also be a 'best case' scenario. In this context, not leaving the whole of North America a desolate, irradiated hellscape.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

I neglected to touch on the deployed military simply because it could take weeks or more for them to come home to fight. Depending on how far the nation fell, they may not be able to return for various reasons. Also, I really only wanted to touch on the geography of how a new set of North American nations would look.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Not trying to 'predict' anything at all. Just throwing some possible outcomes out there. It could happen, it could not. Anything is possible, especially as we're nearing the electoral colleg vote, possible USSC cases, the inauguration in January, and millions of disenfranchised and pissed off people.

Really, the states joining Texas in the suit against the other four states almost seem like the beginnings of lines drawn in the sand to me. I'm glad my state is on Texas' side!

a reply to: Subsonic

I wish! That would be glorious. However, we're too far gone to get back to that without some sort of conflict.

a reply to: CraftyArrow

Well, it was made in the late 90s and theorized to come to be by 2010. I even said the map itself was worthless, but that some of Panarin's predictions for preceding a collapse have come to fruition this year. That was the main reason for its inclusion.

a reply to: Arizonaguy

Then why bother responding? I included an explation for its inclusion, including the warning that some may find the image sensitive.

Here's a modern twist on an old addage, just for you: You can lead a moron to the forum, but you can't make them read.

a reply to: jjkenobi

PR statehood definitely has the highles likelihood. Same for DC, while we're at it. Splitting up CA or NY are unlikely to happen. Many portions of states have tried to split before, with no success. I believe there is currently a referrendum for some of OR to join ID, but it won't gain much more traction.