Re: Formation of the NAC (was OU/NAC ship designations)

On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Steve Pugh wrote:

> > That's the part of the whole NAC thing that is so hard to swallow,
> > that just Canada and the UK could quell a country with the
> > population and military resources of the US. Even if the majority of
> > the military were still loyal to Gen. Parham, (which is hard to
> > believe, given the still large portion of regionalism in America)
> > you still have huge amounts of National Guard units that wouldn't be
> > along with all those military vets with the training and personal
> > weaponry to make an invasion a VERY difficult process. I would
> > really like to see Jon or someone else write something that would
> > attempt to justify this.
> 
> Well we don't know how badly shafted the US economy will be by 2050.
> 
> With individual states already fighting against the Federal Govt.
> (and maybe even against each other) before the British and Canadian
> forces step in the chances are that resistance is disorganised and
> piecemeal. I guess there would have been few actual battles but lots 
> of little scrappy engagements. 
> 
> Guessing that most of the state-of-the-art units would stay loyal to
> Parham. All the UK/Canadian/Federal forces need is air superiority
> and they can really hamper the rebels' logistical support even
> though the rebels are mainly on hoem ground. Maybe it would come
> down to which side the Navy supported, blockade the coasts and fly
> sorties from the CVNs
> 
> It did take 7 years. I doubt there was any nationwide organised
> resistance, after all Parham is the established military. It wasn't 
> a Canadian/UK invasion was it? They were invited in by Parham and all 
> they did was help to 'pacify' the situation. ;-)
> 
> The Brits must have been playing some dirty tricks in the background
> as well, otherwise I simply don't see how the could have got
> everyone to unite under the crown at the end of the war.
> 
>	Steve
> My other .sig is a Porsche.
> 
> Steve Pugh.	    http://ds.dial.pipex.com/town/estate/ax16/
> 
It was indeed a 'pacification' at the invite of Gen. Parnham's govt.,
not
some sort of full-out invasion. And as above and elsewhere, I doubt the
resistance to the UK/Cdn/Federal forces was organized on a nationwide
level - just seven years worth of small scale firefights, ocasional
medium
sized actions, etc.

And as for the Brit. royalty takeover, the Yanks (pardon me, American
public...) is nuts over royalty anyway - see the reaction on US news to
Diana's untimely death -- far less restrained than the stuff here in
Canada and what I've heard on the BBC World Service. Offered stability 
under the British constitutional
monarchy after a war and economic collapse, I can see the American
public
going for the idea.

In closing, just wanted to apologize for starting (accidentally) the
way-off-topic 'could the south win the 1st US Civil War"(silly
topic...)...take it to the
alt.history.what-if usegroup if you want to continue it. Let's keep this
list at least somewhat on topic :)...

Brian (burger00@camosun.bc.ca)