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

Thomas Barclay wrote:

> > and Canadian landings in Georgia and South Carolina are fiercely
> > opposed by FCC forces, but after the previous years of tough
> > conflict during the Civil War, these forces are worn down and have
> > little equipment remaining in good condition.
> 
> But a bunch of Combat Veterans. That would be nasty. And they know
> the terrain. And its far warmer than Brits or Canucks prefer.

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.

> Neither we nor the British have enough troops even with callups to
> manage this. Maybe with significant US help. or UN help.

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
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.

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.

John M. Atkinson