Prev: Re: [FT][SG][DS] Canada, the US Civil War II, and the structure of the NAC (really long) Next: "British", was: [DS] camo schemes for vehicles

Re: [FT][SG][DS] Canada, the US Civil War II, and the structure

From: Chen-Song Qin <cqin@e...>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 19:29:21 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: [FT][SG][DS] Canada, the US Civil War II, and the structure

On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:

> Someone's also never looked at a map of South Carolina.  South
> Carolinians whipped Bastard Tarleton and his English friends hollow
> using the swamps to hide in--this is Guerilla Country par excellance. 
> You're not going to overrun it easily.

Like he said though, there would be plenty of American help.  After all
this was the premise for the British and Canadian intervention in the
first place.  The Americans called for them.

> Uhhh. . . The Canadians can put a division on the ground if they
called
> up every reservist they have.  And then they would be straining to

Canada fielded a very large force (*much* more than a division) in WWII,
with a far smaller population, a less developed economy, and less wealth
in general.

> deploy it--it wouldn't have the logistical tail to sustain long-term
> operations removed from it's base of supply.	The Brits. . .well, they
> deployed a division to Desert Storm with massive US logistical help,
but
> this required every functioning tank in their inventory.  Ooops. How
> you'll deal with 10 Regular Army Divisions, 3 USMC Divisons, 8
National
> Guard Divisions, 15 Enhanced Brigades, 1 USMCR Division, et al. is
going
> to be interesting.  I'd bet there are States of the union with larger
> Air Forces than Canada--I know Texas has about as more tanks than the
UK
> sent to Desert Storm.

Isn't the whole point that the American military government invited
intervention?  The B and C should not have to fight the entire US
military.

> Of course, I don't buy a serious civil war in the US to begin with. 
But
> that's a different rant.  Our military is not a very political one,
and
> hasn't been since the Society of Cincinnatus.

That's definitely true.  I have trouble seeing any western democracy
suddenly having a serious civil war or coup.  Except maybe France.
Of course, I also have trouble seeing European refugees forming a fake
Roman Empire in space based on a previous fake Roman Empire. <g>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Abkai juse, fucihifusa, ejen sefu, coohai janggin, guwan i besise!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

Prev: Re: [FT][SG][DS] Canada, the US Civil War II, and the structure of the NAC (really long) Next: "British", was: [DS] camo schemes for vehicles