Read the whole thing--well mostly. Sorry, but to opine I must make another long post...
anyway
Yes, the states with the active military bases in them would have the obvious advantage. I do not agree with the author who says that soldiers "stationed in NY would not fight against Virginia", etc.. Soldiers/Marines are going to fight for who they serve with, not any state or leader. If they have their families with them, they are going to fight for what keeps their family safe where they are the safest. To assume that a soldier is going to leave his/her unit-with possibly a family in tow- is to assume that said person is going to be able to leave unnoticed, is going to be able to get packed up and out (family esp.), that he is going to be able to travel across the "battle lines" to their home state. Not to mention they would most likely not have their weapons/equipment. Personnel field gear (TA-50) yes, guns, ammo, military vehicle, radios, etc-doubt it.
the author also furthers this argument by using current enlistment by state numbers, and saying they all make it to the home state and that is what makes that state more powerful. Again, the weapons, equipment issue again, not to mention the want and ability to leave their assigned unit.
Today the strongest military states are probably Georgia and Texas. Using active duty bases in these states as well as Army Reserve, Army National Guard and Air National Guard strength in each state and these units roles/assigned equipment. Both states are heavy in Armor, Mechanized Infantry, Attack Aviation, Artillery, Air Defense and support units. PA and SC have large NG maneuver units as well but no assigned Active units.
This also--unless I missed it--fails to take account of the major military strength we have deployed overseas. We have major land and air forces in Germany, Italy, S Korea, Okinawa and Japan. What would the Generals of these forces choose to do? Where/would they even choose to re-deploy to the continental US? This forces would prove to be a major game changer.
Infrastructure/ food, clothing, ammo re-supply for mil and civ population. Where would it come from? Spare parts for the vehicles and aircraft, the tanks and bradleys--each unit only keeps "on-hand" the basic load for deployment. A majority of our military supply is not even in the US but "afloat" or "pre-po'd" in places like Diego Garcia, Bahrain, Germany, Okinawa, Korea, Kuwait. In short, if US based forces were to be used in war, they would quickly run out of bullets. National Guard units keep nothing (perhaps some small arms ammo) on hand. When/if deployed, Guard units are issued basic load ammo/re-supply at the active duty base they deploy from. For the northeast, this is Ft Drum, Ny and Ft Dix, NJ. the south; Ft Bragg, NC, Ft Benning, GA;mid west and western states-FT Hood TX and Ft Sill Oklahoma.
the major Air defense units--PATRIOT missile and THAAD units are stationed at Ft Sill Oklahoma. This leaves the rest of this fractured nation with no air defense save the man pack Stingers and Stinger firing Avenger systems organic to the maneuver units. Stinger missiles are only good for short range defense.
the devastating artillery power of the Multiple Launched rocket system (MLRS) is, in the main, stationed in Georgia and Texas with small units at Ft Bragg, NC. Again, most of these systems are overseas-forward deployed.
not to mention the nuke forces--who retains the "football" of the PoTUS? Who has the national command center? The subs? Tactically nuke the iniators of this rebellion and be done with it at the onset.
And then there is the fact that with volunteer forces--all who have a shared common experience in Basic Trng/ Boot camp, deployments to war, the lifestyle--I find it very hard to believe that they would fire on one another. Civilian militias-no problem. The National Guard--given the animosity felt among active duty towards our weekend warrior brethren, probably no problem firing on them as well.
I don't think that the forces behind this fracture would be able to do so. If no other agency can keep it all glued together, then the Active Forces-competently led, would keep this from happening. perhaps even leading to a military dictatorship until the "children" got themselves under control.
Frankly I am surprised that the author, a Marine, would even consider such a scenario; perhaps he did not get enough bloodletting in Iraq or A-stan. Or maybe he is a reservist who hasn't had his chance to "get in the sh1t" yet.
that was an interesting read. we have become a nation of givers and takers and the givers are getting sick of giving!
The givers are also sick of the takers who hoard all the wealth, and warring with them would probably start the war in the first place, like it has been in all countries which had a top-heavy aristocracy. Revolution happens when the middle class becomes fed up.
