Re: [FT][SG][DS] Canada, the US Civil War II, and the structure of the NAC (really long)

>[snip]
>>OK - as to suggestions...:   <pulling out US map and switching on US
>>history memory from university...>
>>
>>Alaska and Hawaii - direct entry into NAC 'cause of geographic
isolation
>>(tho' you might say that Alaska is subsumed into the "Canada" region,
by
>>virtue of location)
>
>Hmm...

Alaska and the NWT/Yukon (or whatever they are calling themselves -
didn't
they merge or something?) makes some sense - though Alaska may try to go
semi-independant during the time of US collapse - By getting the
tremendously silly Federal govt out of their hair, large scale resource
production could really begin...Distance from the rest of the going-ons
helps isolate them from the worst of the collapse, and there is a
significant amount of military personnel and hardware to annex and put a
credible defense against minor threats.

Hawaii is another story - I can see conflicts with Japan over Hawaii -
They
seem to own most of it anyway...

>>North East Region - The New England states, New York, Pennsylvania,
New
>>Jersey, Maryland, DC, etc
>
>
>Could also be called "The Eastern Seaboard" I guess... possibly more
>appropriate since Maryland is hardly 'North'.

Well, in keeping with 250+ years of tradition, how about 'New England'?

>Sounds good.
>
>>North West Region - Washington, Oregon, Northern California
>
>
>Ah, good! I would put Idaho in here though. I think Idaho identifies
more
>with the NW than the 'great plains'.
>
>>Great Plains Region - Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Minnesota,
>>Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Utah (?) tho' maybe Utah goes in
the
>>South West...
>
>No, Utah would be in here IMHO. See above about Idaho.

Although I think Utah makes more sense in the SW Region than great
plains.
- Smaller Hispanic population, but geographically similar (Sun-blasted
desert wasteland - I'm allowed to say that - I went to school there!)
Also,
peeling a few states off the rather large GP region helps cut it down to
a
better size.

>Perhaps, for the NW region, something completely silly like Pacifica?
Of
>course, Idaho doesn't have a Pacific shoreline, but I still think it
should
>be a part of the NW region. Hm, Pacifica sounds kind of cool actually.
>
>-Buji

Just don't let Seattle culture dominate or create the names - Who wants
to
live in Starbucksland? ;>

All in all, this sounds pretty good..

Jared