I've been working on a redrawn map of North America for my own personal
fictional background, one in which the political lines are redrawn after the
balkanization of the US and Canada and a series of realignments among various
states and provinces into new countries.
I've finished the US west of the Mississippi as well as Canada and the
Carribean, but I'm still working on the east coast and midwest. I was hoping
for input from some people back east on how to realign the states there.
I'm not real interested in the concept of a revived Confederacy, popular as it
is in SF, given the
historical/political baggage it carries and the
unlikelihood that the African-American population of
the modern south would go for it. If it is included,
there has to be some sort of unrest/division within
the south between pro- and anti-confederacy forces.
Input?
> I've been working on a redrawn map of North America
Let's see here, Republic of Texas and the Desereet Empire have already been
covered?
I think that especially in far east coast that breaking things up simple by
state would work rather well, due to the precolonial history that exists and
strong sense of identity thereof.
In the south, turn the area of New Orleans into a 'Creole' polity, as well
as making a Florida a basically Latino/Hispanic polity. The Illinois,
Indiana, plains state could easily make a nice polity, and Kentucky and the
surrounds make a nice geological divide.
Part of the issue is what sort of tech level are you using? Is geography the
deciding factor? Or is it already extant cultural/ethic identity?
> --- David Rodemaker <dar@horusinc.com> wrote:
> Let's see here, Republic of Texas and the Desereet
Yup, although I call it the Lone Star Republic (A concession on the part of
Texans to ease the
absorption of Parts/most/all of AZ,NM, CO, AR, OK, &
LA...
> I think that especially in far east coast that
Hmmmm.... hadn't thought of that....
> In the south, turn the area of New Orleans into a
They went to Texas.
as well
> as making a Florida a basically Latino/Hispanic
Southern Florida joined the Carribean in forming a Conglomerated nation called
"Atlantis."
MN, WI, & MI form the "Republic of the Old Northwest," most of the plains
states are the Native Peoples Nation.
The Illinois,
> Indiana,
I'm thinking IL, IN, OH, KS, MO, & IA as one, TN, KT as one, not sure what to
do with WV.
> Part of the issue is what sort of tech level are you
Haveb't nailed down the tech level yet, we're probably
talking near-c travel but not FTL yet, extra-systemic
travel takes years to the nearest colonies.
Mostly cultural, with some future changes projected, and the occasional nod to
geography.
> I've finished the US west of the Mississippi as well
First, it wouldn't necessarily break by state--for example, northern
Virginia might well go with DC/Maryland instead of the rest of Virginia.
Second, how big are the new nations in the rest of the country? ie are you
looking for nations which are about as big as part of a state, two states,
five states, what?
If you're looking for groups of about 10 states, frankly you're going to get
the Confederacy again (maybe called something else officially but you'll see
the Rebel battle flag about five seconds later). Yeah, some
people won't like it--but some people will just love it. My wife's
roommate in grad school, for instance, came from Louisiana and considered
"damyankee" to be one word. And I had a customer who spent an extra $1000
buying from me rather than directly from the source in Pennsylvania because "I
don't want to talk to anyone in PA, I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy to
live in PA" -- this is an engineer for ITT, by the way, not Bubba with
his backyard moonshine still.
OTOH if you're looking for smaller bts, you might just pick out the largest
cities--eg Charlotte NC, Atlanta, Philadelphia, NYC, Boston, Miami--and
make them the capitals of your new countries.
--- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
> First, it wouldn't necessarily break by state--for
Oh, I definitely have quite a few mid-state splits, so
that's no problem. I just don't know the area well enough to get specific.
> Second, how big are the new nations in the rest of
2-5 states normally.
> If you're looking for groups of about 10 states,
My point was, ENOUGH people won't like it that it's formation will be messy at
best..... or there's going to be a HUGE migration of African Americans away
from it. I don't know what the demographics are, but what% of the population
is black in those states? I just
don't think the re-institution of the Confederacy
would be as smooth and cut-and-dried as some might
think. YMMV.
My wife's
> roommate in grad school, for instance, came from
You easterners and your silly feuds....
> At 11:45 AM -0800 12/12/03, Brian B wrote:
A City State oriented around Atlanta would be interesting. It'd spread beyond
the borders of Northern Georgia into Al, TN, NC and NC. A good portion of it
> Southern Florida joined the Carribean in forming a
Sounds good.
> MN, WI, & MI form the "Republic of the Old Northwest,"
That works well also, though the name doesn't ring true for me.
> The Illinois,
Throw it into the second polity.
> > Part of the issue is what sort of tech level are you
Then the real issue is keeping cultural identity. The Confederacy probably
would rise again, but what make a nice bit of story would be the fact that
it's a impoverished 3rd world nation due to the constant guerilla warfare and
otherwise nasty state of affairs. Not to mention constant tension with
'Atlantis'
> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
Like the anniston AL area as part of it?
> --- David Rodemaker <dar@horusinc.com> wrote:
It's historical for the upper Midwest, though more so for MI and OH, but I
couldn't think of a better name, maybe "Great Lakes Republic"?
> > The Illinois,
Yeah, I had considered making it the scene of intwernal conflict, with
Atlantis and the norther tier eastern nations providing backing for
Anti-confederacy guerillas. I'm also considering
having a large number of African Americans establishing a Black Free State
somewhere in the south because they don't want to just be refugees in the
North. YMMV
> My point was, ENOUGH people won't like it that it's
Yeah, it would probably be messy but I don't know that there would be a huge
migration. YMMV. In any event, you don't *want* everything nice and
placid, do you? :-)
> You easterners and your silly feuds....
As someone said about the differences between two groups of monotheistic
desert-dwelling Semites: "it's important enough to them...you can tell
because they're shooting at each other"
> At 1:37 PM -0800 12/12/03, Brian B wrote:
A good portion of the South East somehow depends on Atlanta for it's economic
livelihood. To be excluded from that would really hit them hard. Most of the
Highways and Rail lines in the area run to Atlanta or through a nearby
associate.
Further, think of the Military bases that would be included as part of that
City State's consolidation. It's got some Air force bases near by, a Sub Base
on the lower coast of Georgia, a big Army Base or two near (Stewart and
Benning) and a couple of big USMC bases (Albany and Parris Island).
As far as Industry, I can see wanting to hang on to the Huntsville complex and
the Port of Savannah. The Rail lines and transportation hub is rather key for
Gulf state oil and manufacturing resources. Appalachia also routes traffic
through the Georgia if it's going to the North East. The aircraft and auto
Industry here as well as the
Bio Medical hub at Emory/CDC is also a big focus.
> At 5:33 PM -0500 12/12/03, laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:
Frankly you're more likely to see a huge migration from places like Ohio than
Georiga. The Civil War was over 140 years ago. That's long enough for most of
the hatred to dissipate.
--- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
> >My point was, ENOUGH people won't like it that it's
Nope... but I took your comments and a couple of other ideas, and came up with
the Atlanta Free State, right in the heart of Dixie, surrounded by the CSA,
predominantly Black, and supported militarily by New Atlantis AND The Yankee
Union.....
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
'Ceptin' in some certain town down there (got a friend I went to school with
in Georgia's DNR dept, and some of the stories he's
told me have been...amazing unhappy ones for this day and age :-/ ).
Mk
> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
I dunno about that. Look at how angry the confederate flah makes a lot of
African Americans. The Confederacy carries a bad connotation for Blacks.....
> On 12 Dec 2003 at 13:10, Brian B wrote:
> My point was, ENOUGH people won't like it that it's
It's interesting moving from Ontario to Louisiana. Much of what I expected to
see hasn't come to fruition.
First, I live in northern Louisiana. There is less in common between Monroe,
where I live, and New Orleans than between many states. The area in the south
of the state is quite a bit different from the rest of the state. I've been
thinking about whether or not the New Orleans area would actually go with
Texas, and I think that's fair given that N.O. would have a fair bit of trade,
and a fair bit in common, with Houston. Northern LA is close in outlook to
rural Texas and Arkansas, so that wouldn't be a problem either.
Where you get major splits in the south is between rural and urban
populations. Since these aren't geographic, I think your inclusion of LA with
Texas is probably a good one. The big loser will be Mississippi, which has a
lot in common with rural LA, but probably wouldn't get included in a bigger
Texas. Mississippi, Alabama and maybe chunks of Florida and Georgia would link
together (or, rather, Alabama and Mississippi would want to link together for
mutual economic protection). Tennessee is tough. It would probably go along
with Oklahoma and/or Missouri, whatever you've done with them. It
could also go with Kentucky, but in that case I see Kentucky splitting, with
Louisville and parts north sticking with Ohio, and southern Kentucky going
with Tennessee. (TN and KT combining, though, makes some sense as they could
leverage the economic advantages of being near Texas and Ohio).
As for the rebirth of the Confederacy... not in LA if sizable chunks of LA go
to Texas. You'd see a rebirth of the Texas Republic, not the Confederacy. Yes,
there is a lot of sentimental attachment to the Confederacy. That attachment
is bigger in rural areas. I think Brian
makes a good point about the African-American population. Monroe has
60%+ African-American. The average for the state isn't 50%, but it's
higher than the national average. That's a lot of leverage against a lot of
baggage. Some would push for it, and they could even end up being a political
force internally, but Texas will be Texas, not part of the Confederacy again.
Florida is more Canadian than it is Confederate these days, so it's not going
to go with the Confederacy
idea either. The Neo-Confederacy would consist of Mississippi,
Alabama, maybe Georgia and the Carolinas if it existed. If your
states divide some other way, no neo-Confederacy.
> At 3:01 PM -0800 12/12/03, Brian B wrote:
A free Atlanta sate of just Atlanta with a Hardline NAACP bent (think Mugabe)
would quickly starve. Much of the real industry is outside the perimeter in
the largely middle and upper class areas. Further, it would, if it went like I
think you're describing, go more towards a Down Town Atlanta and South Atlanta
"Atlanta Free State with some portions of eastern Atlanta (Near I20 south to
I285).
> At 6:04 PM -0500 12/12/03, Indy wrote:
Those certain towns are still, too dependent upon what happens in Atlanta to
do anything else. They'll bitch and moan, but they're a super minority and
most realize that they can be a jerk in open to someone black, but they'd
better not take it beyond a certain point. It's more open down here and less
below the surface, as compared to parts of the North East where it's boiling
below the surface ready to break through and blow up.
I'd rather have it simmer and let off steam that not vent the pressure like it
does down here.
> At 3:10 PM -0800 12/12/03, Brian B wrote:
Yes, but things aren't so peachy in in the North. Ohio isn't the South. LA
isn't the South. And you know, master slave in the context of computer
harddrives is offensive too!
Some of the Confederate Flag grousing is similar to swastika grousing. "That
swastika offends me!!! "umm this is the [Finnish
flag/buddist sign of good luck/Navaho symbol of the sun] you moron."
Some people can't look beyond their 160 year old past and move on. Most of it
down here is grousing and BS. Not enough in my opinion to really split up a
good thing mind you.
> At 5:28 PM -0600 12/12/03, Allan Goodall wrote:
Knoxville and Chattanooga are far more Georgia Aligned if you ask me.
> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
IOW, whatever split we see seems less and less likely to be based on the old
Confederacy.....
Well, not knowing how you did your map:
Maine might break from USA and link up with East Canada, after all half the
country doesn't know we are still part ofthe union anyways. And dependng on
the setting, we might end up with more in common with this block then sothern
US.
A possible MegaCity State (Using New York City,Boston, and Down to DC) as 1
Solid Citystate.
2nd Megacity branching out of Altanta.
Northern Mass, New Hampshire, Vermont and Northern New York as 1 "State"
You say you don't want to see the reborn confederate states. I don't think you
could see it with out the problems you for see, but Any group of Southern
states who were to link up, might use the name Confederate States, 1 to track
linkage back to then. But would the setting be the same sort of states, no.
And don't foregt the Rust belts states a new "Country"
a couple of sources is you can find them I might suggest to look at are
Free America (sourcebook for FreeLancers, which was a sourcebook for Top
Secret/SI by TSR 10+ years ago. (I know I have it somehwere in teh
basement as I
still run a TS/SI heauierly modified game)
And I beleive they did a look at the whole USA for teh Cyberpunk 2020 setting
as well.
If you want more info, drop me a line.
DOC Agren
(Lurker on the Digest)
In a message dated 12/12/03 5:06:07 PM,
> owner-gzg-digest@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU writes:
<< From: Brian B <greywanderer987@yahoo.com>
Subject: Background Material: A call for Help from US Easterners
I've been working on a redrawn map of North America for my own personal
fictional background, one in which the political lines are redrawn after the
balkanization of the US and Canada and a series of realignments among various
states and provinces into new countries.
I've finished the US west of the Mississippi as well as Canada and the
Carribean, but I'm still working on the east coast and midwest. I was hoping
for input from some people back east on how to realign the states there.
I'm not real interested in the concept of a revived Confederacy, popular as it
is in SF, given the
historical/political baggage it carries and the
unlikelihood that the African-American population of
the modern south would go for it. If it is included,
there has to be some sort of unrest/division within
the south between pro- and anti-confederacy forces.
Input?
> [quoted text omitted]
<snip>
> You easterners and your silly feuds....
Feuds in the East?
Californians invade Oregon - oh, yeah, we're free from that in the
West...
Gracias,
<snip>
> Frankly you're more likely to see a huge migration from places like
I'll put up South Saint Louis Whites and North City Blacks any day as
still unwilling to work together - people walked out of restaurants as
near as 10 years ago when i adopted my first daughter from India - NO,
THEY DON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE!
Sorry, sore point.
Gracias,
> At 10:58 PM -0600 12/12/03, <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
Sometimes it's worse for ares of the country that don't have black people at
all. They poopoo the south for it's racial problems, but are strictly white
bread for hundreds of miles. Someone who's not Anglo show's up and they just
don't know how to behave.
Further, the areas around Atlanta are getting better and better about this.
Heck I know of an Openly pagan family in Forsyth county. Not exactly the heart
of southern tolerance. Still, they get along because that county has become a
developing area due to the expansion of the Atlanta Metro Area and the sheer
number of folks building homes there. It's not country much anymore.
My apologies. I should not have gone off like that. There are many
wonderful people in saint Louis who are as 'color-blind' (insert
ethnicity of choice for color as needed) in the good sense of the word.
Not that California (birth state) has a lack of emotion about
Hispanic/racial/ethnic issues.
Side note - Did you know that General Baca's (ret.) - he was a
Mexican-American speaker we had two years ago - Sister-in-law is from
South America (Peru IIRC?) and thinks Mariachi music should be made illegal?
Well, not really <grin> but she says it grates on the ears... apparently
classical music is the pinnacle of some South American countries ideal music.
More evidence that 'people in a box' approaches are dysfunctional.
As to the Confederacy thing - I know that my co-worker (from Louisiana)
tells me that Louisiana voted to stay in the Union until Lincoln levied troop
quotas to go fight their 'relations' in the seceded states. Then Louisiana
reconvened and seceded. Take a look at Southern tariff (taxes) payments to the
Federal Government prior to 1861 and see why Lincoln couldn't afford to let
the South secede without going bankrupt as a nation. I suspect that in a break
up of the US there would not be six much less eleven states together due to
current differences.
Gracias, Glenn (somewhat embarrassed by his post)
Hx, SF, and Fx: 6 mm figures, Starships and 1:6K "Wet Navy" warships are my
main interest. But I have forces in 6 through 25 mm FWIW...
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 00:49:25 -0500 Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
writes:
> At 10:58 PM -0600 12/12/03, <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2003 at 9:33, warbeads@juno.com wrote:
> As to the Confederacy thing - I know that my co-worker (from
Sorry, but your co-worker has it wrong. Lincoln didn't levie troops
to fight against the south until April 15, 1861, the day after the firing on
Fort Sumter. Louisiana voted to secede on January 26, 1861.
In April, 1860, twelve delegates from Louisiana were sent to the Democratic
convention in Charleston. They left the convention (seceded from it) along
with delegates from Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas, Florida, and South Carolina
over compromise policies in the Democratic party to keep the country together.
As a result of the split within the party, the delegates who stayed in
Charleston voted for Stephen Douglas to run for the presidency. The splinter
group met in Baltimore and chose John Breckinridge (Vice President, and later
Confederate General) as their nominee for the presidency. A new, conservative
party, the National Constitutional Union, formed choosing John Bell to run for
president. This party was less secessionist and urged caution. In the
presidential election of 1860 22,861 Louisianians voted for Breckinridge,
20,204 for Bell, 7,625 for Douglas. Lincoln wasn't on the ballot. Louisiana
voted secessionist in the presidential election, but it wasn't a majority.
Many in New Orleans and surrounding parishes voted for compromise. The vote
for Breckinridge was particularly strong outside of the city, in the areas
where there were a lot of plantations.
However, Governor Moore, who was sworn in earlier that year, was
clearly secessionist from the get-go. When it came time for Louisiana
to vote for secession, the vote wasn't even close: 80 secssionist
delegates were chosen, 44 co-operationists, and six "doubtfuls".
Louisiana voted overwhelmingly to secede from the Union.
So, your co-worker is in error. Louisiana was not as secessionist as
some states, but clearly far more secessionist than Virginia and the border
states. And the reason Louisiana left the Union wasn't to help out her
"relations", it was clearly (based on speeches and letters made by Governor
Moore and others) over the question of "African slavery".
> --- Brian B <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> wrote:
> From Robert Heinlein's "Friday", how about the "Illinois Imperium" :)
Covers MN, WI, MI, IA, IL, IN, OH, KS, ND, SD, NE
As for "Native Peoples Nation", that would require a major internal conflict
and the "elimination" or "relocation" of a huge number
(millions) of non-indigeneous people. Be interesting to see how you
PSB it, since all of the people that I know from these areas (particulary SD,
NE and IA) would be happy to see the reservations "reclaimed" for "useful
purposes" (like farming and urban sprawl). Once the protection of the federal
government was removed (by definition in a balkanization), any conflict would
quickly escalate into mechanized National Guard and Reservist forces on the
side of the states...
On a lighter note, see also the HBO telefilm (from the mid 1990's) "The Second
Civil War" (Dennis Leary and Alan Alda) which includes majority ethnic Chinese
Connecticut Nat Guard sent to Idaho (along with ND, SD, etc.) to help resist
the settlement of "foriegn refugees" by the federal government:)
J
May I suggest a slightly different approach, for how to apportion the
balkanized North America?
Look to the commercially navigable rivers/waters. Mississippi, Missouri,
Ohio, Great Lakes; all of these are going to be vastly important for trade,
if you break up the USA/Canada/Mexico. You might see a Great Lakes
Coalition, dedicated to controlling trade/access to the lakes - and thus
the Atlantic, for much of the center of the continent. There would probably
be conflicts across the major rivers, for control of them. Nation/states
lower on the rivers would be in conflict with those higher up, over access to
the oceans...and vice versa, over the flow of the waters themselves.
Don't forget that unless you've somehow handwaved away ICBMs, SSBNs and
other major units, several nation/states just became massively armed
nuclear powers.
And a more personal comment on the Midwest - we Hoosiers (Indianans,
historically) might be willing to 'ally' with Ohio, Michigan and (rural)
Illinois, we'd probably have troubles with Kentucky over the Ohio River. If
any Chicagoans get any ideas, though, Gary, IN = Stalingrad.:)
Sounds okay for USA but how would you balkanize Canada? And more (well to me)
importantly, Mexico? If you don't balkanize Mexico then Southern California
just changed hands with a big boost to Mexican
economic/military-industrial power... LOL! Mexico can now tax income *
directly *!
Gracias, Glenn
Hx, SF, and Fx: 6 mm figures, Starships and 1:6K "Wet Navy" warships are my
main interest. But I have forces in 6 through 25 mm FWIW...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 23:48:33 -0500 "Noah V. Doyle"
> <nvdoyle@insightbb.com> writes:
> Sounds okay for USA but how would you balkanize Canada? And more (well
Mexico I have no comment on, but I could see Quebec breaking off from
Canada, the provinces east of Quebec joining the Maine-to-Massachusetts
polity, and the Iroquois setting up shop on their own. I'd probably keep the
rest together, just so you'd have a big enough population to be competitive
with the neighbors.
> --- warbeads@juno.com wrote:
Or TRY to, at least, yup I have a Cascadia vs California feud in the timeline,
mostly over the southern portion of the future state of Jefferson, which
throws in with Cascadia, to the Californians'
dismay....
- oh, yeah, we're free
> from that in the
Yeah, but it's ours, so it makes more sense, right?
;-P
--- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
> >Sounds okay for USA but how would you balkanize
Balkanization of Mexico is not only possible, but highly likely. I had already
been leaning that way,
but an off-list discussion with another user helped
confirm, there's quite a bit of unrest already in Mexico, it wouldn't take
much to PSB it into a
full-blown Civil War.
but I could see Quebec
> breaking off from
On TomB's advice, I have the Nohawks having a free state, I can see the
Iriqois doing the same, and am open to suggestions as to its exact location.
I'd probably keep
> the rest together, just so you'd have a big enough
No, I have the rest split too, but have a good reason for each division.
> --- "Noah V. Doyle" <nvdoyle@insightbb.com> wrote:
Good stuff indeed, although my current model pretty much follows that pattern
as an accidental result of the cultural divides I chose.
> Don't forget that unless you've somehow handwaved
I'll have to work on that...
> And a more personal comment on the Midwest - we
I had considered expanding the Great Lakes Republic to include IL, IN, and OH,
as well as MN, WI, & MI. I may just go ahead with that.
> --- Jared Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com> wrote:
> From Robert Heinlein's "Friday", how about the
I hated that book, so I'll pass on that one. LOL
> As for "Native Peoples Nation", that would require a
Increases in the whjite populations in those states, increased Indian
populations (already happening from what I've been told)
> Once the protection of the federal government was
Depends on how the Balkanization happens, and it's possible that other states
not directly affected might find it strategically useful to back the
Indians....
> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Sometimes it's worse for ares of the country that
I grew up in an area like that, and when we finally were exposed to
minorities, the reaction was more curiosity than hostility. as you said,
"Someone who's not Anglo show's up and they just don't know how to behave."
But if we're educated wisely, we CAN learn. At least we don't have the baggage
that areas that have been long integrated often have.
> --- DOCAgren@aol.com wrote:
I'm an Oregonian, I know the feeling.
And dependng on
> the setting, we might end up with more in common
Funny, I had a Canadian friend make a similar suggestion for that part of
Canada.
> A possible MegaCity State (Using New York
I was actually considering throwing everything North of NY together... but
I'll definitely consider this input. My map is evolving, thanks to everyone.
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 09:45:05 -0800 (PST) Brian B
> <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes:
The People of Oregon want their area pristine (can't blame them) but in a
war if the Californios are not having the LA-San Francisco-Sacramento
Civil War (Post break up of USA and my money is on this happening
<grin>)
then population numbers, industry and economics should defeat them handily.
But then that's why we call it science Fiction, no? LOL!
> - oh, yeah, we're free
Well, to US it makes sense. " Division at the Tehacapis!" (spelling?)
> =====
Or at least the servant the cat thinks you are...
Gracias,
> --- warbeads@juno.com wrote:
> The People of Oregon want their area pristine (can't
Yup, plus they have a less-than-friendly southern
neighbor to think about.
> then population numbers, industry and economics
Not if youconsider that it's not Oregon, it's Cascadia, which includes OR, WA,
BC, ID, AB, and part of Northern California. With the Seattle area providing
the aerospace muscle, Cascadia gets a bit buffer, especially against a
weakened California, and also considering the terrain California would have to
cross to invade....
> Well, to US it makes sense. " Division at the
Tehachapis. Close enough. Hmmm... SoCal Vs. CentCal... hadn't thought of that
divide.....
> Or at least the servant the cat thinks you are...
Dogs have owners, cats have staff..... Sorry, I have a dog, and since getting
it have been firmly drawn into the canine fanclub....
> --- "Noah V. Doyle" <nvdoyle@insightbb.com> wrote:
Like during the Cold War, when an independent North Dakota would have been the
world's 3rd largest nuclear power, after the USSR and the rest of the US?:)
J
> --- Jared Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hmmm.... maybe a massive disarmament happens prior to the breakup.....
I would think that most were expended in the early stages of the conflict
leading to the breakup. Reminds me of "Hard John Apples Nuclear Hit Parade".
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
> --- Michael Brown <mwbrown@sonic.net> wrote:
Except that the background story I've developed includes a slightly less
vioelnt end to the U.S. so that wouldn't fit the storyline.
Of course you could say that the reason the breakup was so bloodless was
because of all the new nuclear powers in the region and no-one wants to
risk glowing in the dark Jim
[quoted original message omitted]
***
Of course you could say that the reason the breakup was so bloodless was
because of all the new nuclear powers in the region and no-one wants to
risk glowing in the dark Jim
***
Or, there simply weren't any nukes. I thought there has been a steady
reduction of land-based silos in the US.
Or, the safeguards worked and rendered the weapons unusable when
take-overs
were attempted.
The_Beast
Could be..... We'll see
> --- Jim Morrison <Ajax.Dive@btinternet.com> wrote:
> --- Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:
> Or, there simply weren't any nukes. I thought there
That's actually the option I lean towards, for my own personal gameverse.
> At 1:43 PM -0800 12/16/03, Brian B wrote:
Yeah, but you bet that there are some Nuke PGMs or LACMs.
> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
Oh, sure. But no big ICBM stuff.
> --- Brian B <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Yeah, but you bet that there are some Nuke PGMs or
At least not in the beginning of the timeline. As time goes by, maybe some of
the nations created will rebuild a nuclear arsenal.... who knows... it's all
fluid....
> At 3:10 PM -0800 12/16/03, Brian B wrote:
What about those nukes on board various Naval Vessels (Nuclear Wessels) in
harbors all over several coasts (SLBMs are a big question) as well as those
usual Cruise Missiles. Those SLBMs would give some states a increase in the
size of their fists.
Don't mess with Georgia or Maine. They have at current levels 9 each of the
Ohios based at Kings Bay or Bangor respectively.
Then there's Groton, Guam (hey you forgot Guam!), San Deigo, Pearl, and
Norfolk for the SSNs
> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> What about those nukes on board various Naval
Actually, that's Bangor Washington. Along with Bremerton, Everett, and NAS
Whidbey Island, as well as Ft. Lewis and Fairchild AFB, Cascadia would not to
be trifled with either.
> Then there's Groton, Guam (hey you forgot Guam!)
Oops... um..... I'll get back to you on that one.
> San Deigo,
San Diego I'm very familiar with, lived there for 11 years.
> At 3:41 PM -0800 12/16/03, Brian B wrote:
Doh.. Its that other cold wet state up north close to canada... ;-)
> Bremerton, Everett, and NAS Whidbey Island, as well as
The ssbns are based in two places as I understand it.
> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
Heh.... less cold more wet....
> >Bremerton, Everett, and NAS Whidbey Island, as well
Yup, Bangor has 8 SSBN's and 2 SSGN's. Everett has 3 FFG's and 2 DDG's,
Bremerton a CVN and 4 AOE's, and NAS Whidbey has 19 squadrons, including
prowlers, Orions, and a bunch of supply stuff. Light on fighters, though both
WA and OR have AFR ang ANG squadrons, plus 2 Active Duty AFB's (Including
Fairchild, home to the USAF's SERE school).
Actually, Everett has a CVN stationed there also. Further, the shipyard at
Bremerton is the only base on the West Coast which can work on the CVN's power
plants. The big problem here is that most of the CVN's attack fighters are
based in California when not out to sea. I also believe that there is an Air
Force base near Spokane. I am not sure if your intent is to include eastern
Washington into Cascadia or not. To listen to some of those on the other side
of the mountains, you would think that they live in a different state now.
[quoted original message omitted]
> I also believe that there is an Air Force base near Spokane.
That's Fairchild AFB -- a SAC base with nuclear capability. I grew up
there, and we used to watch the B-52's flying around all the time, but
to see a fighter is rare.
There's also Mountainhome AFB in Idaho and Malmstrom AFB in Montana; those
might be TAC bases, although I don't know for sure any more.
Western Washington has Fort Lewis (3rd Bde, 2ID; 1st Bde, 25th ID; 2nd Ranger
Bn.; 1st SFG), McChord AFB (mostly heavy lift stuff), Bangor sub base,
Bremerton shipyard, and the Whidbey Island NAS, if anyone needs a
run-down. It's the largest concentration of US military power north of
San Diego/Ft. Irwin and west of Colorado.
> --- "Karl A. Bergman" <karlbergman@charter.net> wrote:
True enough, but it's a start. I knew Everett had a CV, but wasn't sure if it
was a different one or the same one transferred over to the new base. And I
did admit a decided lack of naval fighter assets in WA, I haven't looked into
current statistics for fighter assets in Alaska or Canadian ones in BC or AB.
Of course, if Nevada decides to side with the Northwest instead of with
California (Possible, given general western animosity towards
californication), then Cascadia ends up with NAS Fallon.
I also believe that
> there is an Air Force base near Spokane.
That's Fairchild.
I am not
> sure if your intent is to
Yup, and good portions of Idaho.
To
> listen to some of those
Same in Eastern and Southern Oregon. Different states, but within one nation
would be plausible.
(Southern Oregon/Northern CA becomes Jefferson. Maybe
Split Washington, name the eastern side Palouse, I'll have to work on a name
for Eastern Oregon).
> --- Andreas Udby <javelin98@lycos.com> wrote:
Fairchild's also home to a major tanker base AND a survival school. Most of
the Northwest's fighters are in Portland and Klamath Falls, Oregon ANG.
> There's also Mountainhome AFB in Idaho and Malmstrom
When I lived in ID as a boy, Mountain Home was an
F-111 base. Not sure these days.
> Western Washington has Fort Lewis (3rd Bde, 2ID;
And with San Diego busy fighting it's southern neighbors, Cascadia would have
a fighting chance, assuming it maintains good diplomacy with it's eastern
neighbors.
In a message dated 12/17/03 2:02:06 AM,
> owner-gzg-digest@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU writes:
<<
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:23:07 -0500
From: Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
<snip> What about those nukes on board various Naval Vessels (Nuclear
Wessels) in harbors all over several coasts (SLBMs are a big
question) as well as those usual Cruise Missiles. Those SLBMs would
give some states a increase in the size of their fists.
Don't mess with Georgia or Maine. They have at current levels 9 each
of the Ohios based at Kings Bay or Bangor respectively.
Then there's Groton, Guam (hey you forgot Guam!), San Deigo, Pearl,
and Norfolk for the SSNs >>
Unless I truely missed something here in Maine, we are in theory Nuke Weapons
Free now...
> --- DOCAgren@aol.com wrote:
> Unless I truely missed something here in Maine, we
Nope, you didn't. There was some confusion as to the location of the SSBN base
at Bangor (It's Bangor WA, not Bangor ME).