-
- Neal Anderth
- Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
-
- Posts: 895
- Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm
27 Nov 2012, 1:37 pm
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2012/1 ... d_war.htmlI have to say after running many scenarios in Supreme Ruler 2020 that California is the single best state, because of it's population, technology, economy, military assets, and buffer. You get to strike out immediately and create land and air defense buffers, you have an economy that can support sustained operations, and you get the get control over most of the western seaboard from the get go.
Now regionally speaking the NE would be a serious powerhouse, but on a sole state basis California is pretty good. I've tried Texas as well and it's just about as viable.
-
- Sassenach
- Emissary
-
- Posts: 3405
- Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am
27 Nov 2012, 3:16 pm
So who would win the battle of the red vs blue states ?
-
- Neal Anderth
- Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
-
- Posts: 895
- Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm
28 Nov 2012, 10:16 am
Bbauska and I spent an hour discussing this, he did an analysis of military bases. The Blue states have a decisive advantage with navy/marines, the Red states have a major advantage with army, air power seems to be about split. Assuming no NBC it could be a drawn out affair. The Red states would be under naval blockade but would control satellites through Nebraska.
Who wants to research military manufacturing and logistics?
-
- Sassenach
- Emissary
-
- Posts: 3405
- Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am
28 Nov 2012, 12:19 pm
Nebraska would be vulnerable though, it's sandwiched between the Blue strongholds in the NW and around the great lakes. Most of the red state strength is in the south.
-
- bbauska
- Administrator
-
- Posts: 7411
- Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm
28 Nov 2012, 12:24 pm
The satellite comms in Nebraska are double networked elsewhere, but the main control center would be a good prize. There are not much ground support in the NW or Great Lakes. The possibility of invasion is difficult to see.
I see a naval vs ground prolonged situation. Considering the disdain for war by most of the Left, the resolve of Blue states are suspect.
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 15994
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
28 Nov 2012, 1:14 pm
bbauska wrote:I see a naval vs ground prolonged situation. Considering the disdain for war by most of the Left, the resolve of Blue states are suspect.
hah! that's just what we want you to think.
Actually, it's really just a small but vocal portion of the left who are pacifists. And I don't doubt that some of them would make exceptions. After all, those effete liberal Northerners beat the manly conservative South in the 1860s.
The other issue is internal opposition that could make problems. Are there centres of rebellion in some States that could hamper the efforts or even serve as a 5th column?
-
- Sassenach
- Emissary
-
- Posts: 3405
- Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am
28 Nov 2012, 3:48 pm
The Reds would suffer with trying to maintain order in the urban areas I think. On the other hand, the Blues might struggle to maintain food supplies given that the most fertile agricultural regions are in the Red states and the rural parts of the Blue states might be disloyal. The Blues would have a big edge in heavy industry, but the Reds probably control much more of the oil supplies.
Of course, you'd also have to wonder about foreign interference. It's likely that both Canada and Mexico would side with the Blues, and that could be significant.
-
- Neal Anderth
- Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
-
- Posts: 895
- Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm
28 Nov 2012, 5:03 pm
Foreign interference is a bit like NBC, too hard to allow into the equation to have manageable speculation. I'd assume that such a scenario would likely occur in a world with a collapsed EU and Russia and China also facing serious internal division. Would Mexico and Canada want to be belligerents or stay on the sidelines? The NE would likely demand food from Canada. The West Coast is a food exporter.