stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,823 
Likes: 13,215
|
Post by stevep on Aug 5, 2019 22:31:33 GMT
Agreed. I think the best option, and its a pretty thin hope I fear, would be to hunker down and hope to last out until the assorted extreme groups largely destroy each other.
I don’t know that we have much hope there. Additionally, Canada is potentially endangered by the conflict raging Down South, so what measures might the greater Empire take to mitigate that gigantic national security threat?
That would be the problem of total overstretch. Britain would be threatened by Nazi Germany, Canada by the chaos in the divided US and ANZ and India by the Japanese expansion. Not to mention Italian and probably both German and Soviet designs in the ME region. The only hope would be that enough enemies would be keeping each other busy and preferably bleeding them each out that the empire and what's left of the democratic world could pick its battles and gradually finish off weakened enemies one by one.
If they get a chance then they should have an advantage in terms of organisation and technology as totalitarian states tend to have weaknesses in such. Plus unless the two sides in the US are ASB focused on fanatical loyalty to their faction then there is likely to be internal dissent and growing disenchantment with the endless conflict. In this scenario, if we could avoid crippling defeat long enough there could be a decent chance that its the democratic alliance that ends up getting nukes 1st. However going to be a long and hard road to that point.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Aug 5, 2019 22:48:44 GMT
I don’t know that we have much hope there. Additionally, Canada is potentially endangered by the conflict raging Down South, so what measures might the greater Empire take to mitigate that gigantic national security threat?
That would be the problem of total overstretch. Britain would be threatened by Nazi Germany, Canada by the chaos in the divided US and ANZ and India by the Japanese expansion. Not to mention Italian and probably both German and Soviet designs in the ME region. The only hope would be that enough enemies would be keeping each other busy and preferably bleeding them each out that the empire and what's left of the democratic world could pick its battles and gradually finish off weakened enemies one by one.
If they get a chance then they should have an advantage in terms of organisation and technology as totalitarian states tend to have weaknesses in such. Plus unless the two sides in the US are ASB focused on fanatical loyalty to their faction then there is likely to be internal dissent and growing disenchantment with the endless conflict. In this scenario, if we could avoid crippling defeat long enough there could be a decent chance that its the democratic alliance that ends up getting nukes 1st. However going to be a long and hard road to that point.
Yeah, I wonder if the strain will end up being too much for the British Empire to keep itself together for long. This would, however, make for an interesting TL to write (albeit maybe a depressing one since the odds for liberal democracy don't look so great thus far). |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,823
Likes: 13,215
|
Post by stevep on Aug 6, 2019 7:31:17 GMT
Probably, yeah. Or at the absolute best, a Cold War between what will be at least two distinct blocs that stand for communism and fascism respectively. Would be fun to see it happen in 1940, because at that time the Nazis and Soviets where still at peace.
Going back to this would the states be divided according to their political status in 1940 or now? That would make a big difference as in 1940 it was a curb stomp for the Democrats in 1940 with the Republicans getting only 10 states - at least in the Presidential election see map in 1940_United_States_presidential_election. The only ones of industrial importance would be Indiana and Michigan so the 2nd civil war would quickly end in a communist victory.
If your going by the elections for the lower house, see 1940_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections#/media/File:77_us_house_membership.png, then its less one sided but the majority of the country is still strongly communist with only New England and the mid-west region being fascist and California and some other areas possibly split. If all those states that were less than 60% dominated by one party went fascist then they also get California, Ohio, Idaho, Montana and Colorado and link up their territories outside New England so that could be a tougher fight.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Aug 7, 2019 17:32:21 GMT
Would be fun to see it happen in 1940, because at that time the Nazis and Soviets where still at peace.
Going back to this would the states be divided according to their political status in 1940 or now? That would make a big difference as in 1940 it was a curb stomp for the Democrats in 1940 with the Republicans getting only 10 states - at least in the Presidential election see map in 1940_United_States_presidential_election. The only ones of industrial importance would be Indiana and Michigan so the 2nd civil war would quickly end in a communist victory.
If your going by the elections for the lower house, see 1940_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections#/media/File:77_us_house_membership.png, then its less one sided but the majority of the country is still strongly communist with only New England and the mid-west region being fascist and California and some other areas possibly split. If all those states that were less than 60% dominated by one party went fascist then they also get California, Ohio, Idaho, Montana and Colorado and link up their territories outside New England so that could be a tougher fight.
Good to know. On the 1940 US presidential election, the link to it loops back to this same page. As it appears to apply to all of the examples you brought up, though, a potential war between the communist and fascist states of the country seems too one-sided. As such, I'm trying to look for an election with a more equitable distribution of states so that there's actually a long, hard, bitter conflict between the two distinct blocs rather than a clear stomp in favor of one. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,823
Likes: 13,215
|
Post by stevep on Aug 8, 2019 15:07:27 GMT
Going back to this would the states be divided according to their political status in 1940 or now? That would make a big difference as in 1940 it was a curb stomp for the Democrats in 1940 with the Republicans getting only 10 states - at least in the Presidential election see map in 1940_United_States_presidential_election. The only ones of industrial importance would be Indiana and Michigan so the 2nd civil war would quickly end in a communist victory.
If your going by the elections for the lower house, see 1940_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections#/media/File:77_us_house_membership.png, then its less one sided but the majority of the country is still strongly communist with only New England and the mid-west region being fascist and California and some other areas possibly split. If all those states that were less than 60% dominated by one party went fascist then they also get California, Ohio, Idaho, Montana and Colorado and link up their territories outside New England so that could be a tougher fight.
Good to know. On the 1940 US presidential election, the link to it loops back to this same page. As it appears to apply to all of the examples you brought up, though, a potential war between the communist and fascist states of the country seems too one-sided. As such, I'm trying to look for an election with a more equitable distribution of states so that there's actually a long, hard, bitter conflict between the two distinct blocs rather than a clear stomp in favor of one.
OK thanks for that. Should be corrected now.
Getting a more balanced election and division of the country is really needed to stop a quick victory. How about the 1960 as that was notoriously close - see 1960_United_States_presidential_election. Although that also has the problem of a 3rd party vote for a right wing Byrd/Thumstom pairing in Alabama and Mississippi. Also another complication is that since the old south was politically dominated by the Democratic Party at this point it would fit more in the fascist camp than the communist?
A more recent alternative might be better - say the 2000_United_States_presidential_election. This has most of the country under Republican/fascist control but the west coast and most of the old industrial heartland of the NE and Great Lakes areas would be Democrat/communist. Could be a better match, and give the basis for a long and bloody war possibly. The communists would have the bulk of the industry and the Pacific fleet, as well as Hawaii but be in two widely separated blocs - plus a very isolated New Mexico that wouldn't last long. The fascists would, other than isolated New Hampshire and Alaska, have a continuous bloc of territory controlling the bulk of the country including the Mississippi Valley and probably the bulk of the peace-time army as well as the Atlantic fleet. The communists would have the bulk of the industry and more population I suspect but the fascists have the food production and main oil centres.
In either case not sure what happens to other US possessions, i.e. Puerto Rico, the Philippines and the Panama Canal Zone. Or expats overseas. Possibly leave them in their original state so their looking with total bewilderment at what the hell's happened to their country but can make their own choices.
Also what happens to minority groups as it would be even more unnatural for the country to be split in two totally unanimous blocs with everybody in one area giving unquestioning support to the fascists and the other to the communists?
Steve
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Aug 8, 2019 22:41:30 GMT
Good to know. On the 1940 US presidential election, the link to it loops back to this same page. As it appears to apply to all of the examples you brought up, though, a potential war between the communist and fascist states of the country seems too one-sided. As such, I'm trying to look for an election with a more equitable distribution of states so that there's actually a long, hard, bitter conflict between the two distinct blocs rather than a clear stomp in favor of one.
OK thanks for that. Should be corrected now.
Getting a more balanced election and division of the country is really needed to stop a quick victory. How about the 1960 as that was notoriously close - see 1960_United_States_presidential_election. Although that also has the problem of a 3rd party vote for a right wing Byrd/Thumstom pairing in Alabama and Mississippi. Also another complication is that since the old south was politically dominated by the Democratic Party at this point it would fit more in the fascist camp than the communist?
A more recent alternative might be better - say the 2000_United_States_presidential_election. This has most of the country under Republican/fascist control but the west coast and most of the old industrial heartland of the NE and Great Lakes areas would be Democrat/communist. Could be a better match, and give the basis for a long and bloody war possibly. The communists would have the bulk of the industry and the Pacific fleet, as well as Hawaii but be in two widely separated blocs - plus a very isolated New Mexico that wouldn't last long. The fascists would, other than isolated New Hampshire and Alaska, have a continuous bloc of territory controlling the bulk of the country including the Mississippi Valley and probably the bulk of the peace-time army as well as the Atlantic fleet. The communists would have the bulk of the industry and more population I suspect but the fascists have the food production and main oil centres.
In either case not sure what happens to other US possessions, i.e. Puerto Rico, the Philippines and the Panama Canal Zone. Or expats overseas. Possibly leave them in their original state so their looking with total bewilderment at what the hell's happened to their country but can make their own choices.
Also what happens to minority groups as it would be even more unnatural for the country to be split in two totally unanimous blocs with everybody in one area giving unquestioning support to the fascists and the other to the communists?
Steve
Good points. About overseas American possessions, maybe they should remain normal and probably break away from the now-fractured United States? I don't know whether the rest of the Free World can offer foreign aid and other support, however, due to the fact that they'll get close to a gigantic war zone between two violent and ruthlessly authoritarian sides. Just to make it interesting, we could also allow some stragglers to remain un-warped so that there's armed groups that form as well as pockets of sanity that survive the chaos. Maybe a Rebel Alliance-like faction founded by what remains of the Libertarian Party or two could take shape, perhaps? In terms of how the actual clash between Red and Blue states goes, however, I can't speculate much on the specifics aside from concurring that New Mexico will likely fall in short order. Oh, and that this will probably be the most grinding and atrocity-prone war since the Eastern Front of World War II was fought. Dare I say, maybe even worse than that. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,823
Likes: 13,215
|
Post by stevep on Aug 8, 2019 23:17:01 GMT
OK thanks for that. Should be corrected now.
Getting a more balanced election and division of the country is really needed to stop a quick victory. How about the 1960 as that was notoriously close - see 1960_United_States_presidential_election. Although that also has the problem of a 3rd party vote for a right wing Byrd/Thumstom pairing in Alabama and Mississippi. Also another complication is that since the old south was politically dominated by the Democratic Party at this point it would fit more in the fascist camp than the communist?
A more recent alternative might be better - say the 2000_United_States_presidential_election. This has most of the country under Republican/fascist control but the west coast and most of the old industrial heartland of the NE and Great Lakes areas would be Democrat/communist. Could be a better match, and give the basis for a long and bloody war possibly. The communists would have the bulk of the industry and the Pacific fleet, as well as Hawaii but be in two widely separated blocs - plus a very isolated New Mexico that wouldn't last long. The fascists would, other than isolated New Hampshire and Alaska, have a continuous bloc of territory controlling the bulk of the country including the Mississippi Valley and probably the bulk of the peace-time army as well as the Atlantic fleet. The communists would have the bulk of the industry and more population I suspect but the fascists have the food production and main oil centres.
In either case not sure what happens to other US possessions, i.e. Puerto Rico, the Philippines and the Panama Canal Zone. Or expats overseas. Possibly leave them in their original state so their looking with total bewilderment at what the hell's happened to their country but can make their own choices.
Also what happens to minority groups as it would be even more unnatural for the country to be split in two totally unanimous blocs with everybody in one area giving unquestioning support to the fascists and the other to the communists?
Steve
Good points. About overseas American possessions, maybe they should remain normal and probably break away from the now-fractured United States? I don't know whether the rest of the Free World can offer foreign aid and other support, however, due to the fact that they'll get close to a gigantic war zone between two violent and ruthlessly authoritarian sides. Just to make it interesting, we could also allow some stragglers to remain un-warped so that there's armed groups that form as well as pockets of sanity that survive the chaos. Maybe a Rebel Alliance-like faction founded by what remains of the Libertarian Party or two could take shape, perhaps? In terms of how the actual clash between Red and Blue states goes, however, I can't speculate much on the specifics aside from concurring that New Mexico will likely fall in short order. Oh, and that this will probably be the most grinding and atrocity-prone war since the Eastern Front of World War II was fought. Dare I say, maybe even worse than that.
If we're assuming that most of the population in each side are turned into die-hard fanatics - which I fear would be all too accurate  - then the proportional death toll is going to be at least as bad and quite possibly the overall death toll. Remembering that in this scenario the eastern front is likely to be even bloodier as Germany will face less pressure from the west without the US and Russia will get no L-L from the US. The other option is that at some point the leaders of both sides realise they have more to lose from continuing the fighting and come to terms but how many millions or tens of millions might be dead by then? 
If we're using a 2000 election result for a 1940 division its difficult to suggest how much of the total population will be affected and possibly for how long. It would make sense that elements in both blocs would either support the other or have the sense to say they want nothing to do with it. If the latter figure is less than say 10-15% then their best bet is probably to get the hell out of what's left of the US as Mexico, let alone Canada would probably offer them a better chance of surviving than staying where they are.
Just to check are we assuming communism = hard line Lenin or Stalin type state [or possibly even Mao!] and fascism = Nazi rather than any less extreme version of either political type? If you have outright Nazi type fascism does it include a lot of the racist ideas in which case being black, Jewish or possibly even Catholic or Latino in the fascist areas could be very bad for your health, even if your magically transformed into believing that's bloc's values. Ditto with large business owners and independent workers in the communist bloc. Plenty of options for gulags or concentration camps in such cases I fear.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Aug 8, 2019 23:33:11 GMT
Good points. About overseas American possessions, maybe they should remain normal and probably break away from the now-fractured United States? I don't know whether the rest of the Free World can offer foreign aid and other support, however, due to the fact that they'll get close to a gigantic war zone between two violent and ruthlessly authoritarian sides. Just to make it interesting, we could also allow some stragglers to remain un-warped so that there's armed groups that form as well as pockets of sanity that survive the chaos. Maybe a Rebel Alliance-like faction founded by what remains of the Libertarian Party or two could take shape, perhaps? In terms of how the actual clash between Red and Blue states goes, however, I can't speculate much on the specifics aside from concurring that New Mexico will likely fall in short order. Oh, and that this will probably be the most grinding and atrocity-prone war since the Eastern Front of World War II was fought. Dare I say, maybe even worse than that.
If we're assuming that most of the population in each side are turned into die-hard fanatics - which I fear would be all too accurate - then the proportional death toll is going to be at least as bad and quite possibly the overall death toll. Remembering that in this scenario the eastern front is likely to be even bloodier as Germany will face less pressure from the west without the US and Russia will get no L-L from the US. The other option is that at some point the leaders of both sides realise they have more to lose from continuing the fighting and come to terms but how many millions or tens of millions might be dead by then?
If we're using a 2000 election result for a 1940 division its difficult to suggest how much of the total population will be affected and possibly for how long. It would make sense that elements in both blocs would either support the other or have the sense to say they want nothing to do with it. If the latter figure is less than say 10-15% then their best bet is probably to get the hell out of what's left of the US as Mexico, let alone Canada would probably offer them a better chance of surviving than staying where they are.
Just to check are we assuming communism = hard line Lenin or Stalin type state [or possibly even Mao!] and fascism = Nazi rather than any less extreme version of either political type? If you have outright Nazi type fascism does it include a lot of the racist ideas in which case being black, Jewish or possibly even Catholic or Latino in the fascist areas could be very bad for your health, even if your magically transformed into believing that's bloc's values. Ditto with large business owners and independent workers in the communist bloc. Plenty of options for gulags or concentration camps in such cases I fear.
Oh. I was assuming that when we went with the 2000 election division, we were also working with 2000 America instead. As far as the politics of both main factions go--whether set in 1940 or 2000--I guess we'll go with the most fanatical and authoritarian iteration of both ideologies without them destroying themselves (i.e. no Khmer Rouge-style self-destruction on the part of the Blue States). On the Red States' side, maybe persecuted groups will go underground to form their own armed resistance groups, albeit those who stay under the radar. For those who aren't so fortunate to escape the American jackboots or red guards, well... |
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Aug 8, 2019 23:39:52 GMT
With all due respect, I think this is more a 'Frivolous Fandom Thread' question. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,923
Likes: 49,326
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 9, 2019 8:27:33 GMT
With all due respect, I think this is more a 'Frivolous Fandom Thread' question. Good spotting Zyobot. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,823
Likes: 13,215
|
Post by stevep on Aug 9, 2019 10:27:14 GMT
If we're assuming that most of the population in each side are turned into die-hard fanatics - which I fear would be all too accurate - then the proportional death toll is going to be at least as bad and quite possibly the overall death toll. Remembering that in this scenario the eastern front is likely to be even bloodier as Germany will face less pressure from the west without the US and Russia will get no L-L from the US. The other option is that at some point the leaders of both sides realise they have more to lose from continuing the fighting and come to terms but how many millions or tens of millions might be dead by then?
If we're using a 2000 election result for a 1940 division its difficult to suggest how much of the total population will be affected and possibly for how long. It would make sense that elements in both blocs would either support the other or have the sense to say they want nothing to do with it. If the latter figure is less than say 10-15% then their best bet is probably to get the hell out of what's left of the US as Mexico, let alone Canada would probably offer them a better chance of surviving than staying where they are.
Just to check are we assuming communism = hard line Lenin or Stalin type state [or possibly even Mao!] and fascism = Nazi rather than any less extreme version of either political type? If you have outright Nazi type fascism does it include a lot of the racist ideas in which case being black, Jewish or possibly even Catholic or Latino in the fascist areas could be very bad for your health, even if your magically transformed into believing that's bloc's values. Ditto with large business owners and independent workers in the communist bloc. Plenty of options for gulags or concentration camps in such cases I fear.
Oh. I was assuming that when we went with the 2000 election division, we were also working with 2000 America instead. As far as the politics of both main factions go--whether set in 1940 or 2000--I guess we'll go with the most fanatical and authoritarian iteration of both ideologies without them destroying themselves (i.e. no Khmer Rouge-style self-destruction on the part of the Blue States). On the Red States' side, maybe persecuted groups will go underground to form their own armed resistance groups, albeit those who stay under the radar. For those who aren't so fortunate to escape the American jackboots or red guards, well...
Ah you mean instead of 1940's US being split in this way in the middle of WWII its happening with 2000 US? Sorry I was thinking we were still talking about it in the 1940 period and with the people and resources of that time.
If we're thinking of it occurring in 2000 then it makes one thing easier. Only those who voted Democrat in the states that Gore won the electoral college of become fanatical communists and those who voted Republican in states that Bush won become fanatical fascists. Possibly also some voters who were in the minority in their state get transformed as well? Or simply all who voted for either party? That would really split Florida down the middle. Any of those options would leave non voters, expats and possibly some others think what the hell's happening.
Steve
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Aug 11, 2019 22:16:32 GMT
Oh. I was assuming that when we went with the 2000 election division, we were also working with 2000 America instead. As far as the politics of both main factions go--whether set in 1940 or 2000--I guess we'll go with the most fanatical and authoritarian iteration of both ideologies without them destroying themselves (i.e. no Khmer Rouge-style self-destruction on the part of the Blue States). On the Red States' side, maybe persecuted groups will go underground to form their own armed resistance groups, albeit those who stay under the radar. For those who aren't so fortunate to escape the American jackboots or red guards, well...
Ah you mean instead of 1940's US being split in this way in the middle of WWII its happening with 2000 US? Sorry I was thinking we were still talking about it in the 1940 period and with the people and resources of that time.
If we're thinking of it occurring in 2000 then it makes one thing easier. Only those who voted Democrat in the states that Gore won the electoral college of become fanatical communists and those who voted Republican in states that Bush won become fanatical fascists. Possibly also some voters who were in the minority in their state get transformed as well? Or simply all who voted for either party? That would really split Florida down the middle. Any of those options would leave non voters, expats and possibly some others think what the hell's happening.
Steve
I think that to reduce the inevitably herculean chaos that'll take control of the country with the impending civil war, maybe everyone who voted in each state just joins the camp of whichever state went to which candidate, so Democrats in Texas would flock to the fascist bloc, while Republicans in California get absorbed into the communist one. And the two nominees lead the distinct sides that form, with G.W. Bush heading the Red States and Al Gore the Blue ones. As for those who support neither of the two dominant political parties, maybe non-voters and members of comparatively minor factions remain sane and lay low. Those looking to defend themselves could form mutual-aid militias and resistance groups. Rebel Alliance-inspired Libertarian Party, anyone? Oh, and maybe we should get rid of (or at least dramatically cap the supply of) nukes, too. As grinding, blood-drenched and atrocity-prone as the incoming war will be, I'd like to keep an irradiated wasteland that spans the former United States from taking shape, at least in the short term. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,823
Likes: 13,215
|
Post by stevep on Aug 12, 2019 15:19:41 GMT
Ah you mean instead of 1940's US being split in this way in the middle of WWII its happening with 2000 US? Sorry I was thinking we were still talking about it in the 1940 period and with the people and resources of that time.
If we're thinking of it occurring in 2000 then it makes one thing easier. Only those who voted Democrat in the states that Gore won the electoral college of become fanatical communists and those who voted Republican in states that Bush won become fanatical fascists. Possibly also some voters who were in the minority in their state get transformed as well? Or simply all who voted for either party? That would really split Florida down the middle. Any of those options would leave non voters, expats and possibly some others think what the hell's happening.
Steve
I think that to reduce the inevitably herculean chaos that'll take control of the country with the impending civil war, maybe everyone who voted in each state just joins the camp of whichever state went to which candidate, so Democrats in Texas would flock to the fascist bloc, while Republicans in California get absorbed into the communist one. And the two nominees lead the distinct sides that form, with G.W. Bush heading the Red States and Al Gore the Blue ones. As for those who support neither of the two dominant political parties, maybe non-voters and members of comparatively minor factions remain sane and lay low. Those looking to defend themselves could form mutual-aid militias and resistance groups. Rebel Alliance-inspired Libertarian Party, anyone? Oh, and maybe we should get rid of (or at least dramatically cap the supply of) nukes, too. As grinding, blood-drenched and atrocity-prone as the incoming war will be, I'd like to keep an irradiated wasteland that spans the former United States from taking shape, at least in the short term.
That would reduce the infighting inside states but could make things worse in the wider conflict as both sides would be fairly homogeneous apart from the non-voters and members of minor party groups. Either way its going to be a huge mess and as you say nukes could make it a hell of a lot worse.
Moving it to a set date, say 2000 rather than in 1940 does mean we get a coherent way of getting the two sides allocated and does mean the world doesn't have to deal with this insanity while in the midst of WWII. I think that possibly the ASB removes all nuclear forces or at least renders them inoperable. Although this does make the US vulnerable to attacks from other nuclear powers, along with areas under the US nuclear umbrella. Going to be messy in Korea I fear and there is the possibility of Russia trying something nasty in Europe or the ME say given the new opportunities.
Presumably foreigners caught in the US at that point would be unaffected - at least until whichever brutal bloc they find themselves in gets hold of them but hopefully many will escape. What will happen with US expats abroad? Are they also unaffected? This could include USA forces based abroad and their weapons, which if their persuaded not to dash home and try and sort out the mess their homeland has becomes could help maintain stability outside the US a bit.
If all voters for the two main parties are transformed into committed supporters of the two totalitarian regimes I can't see any way this doesn't end up with virtually all the US totally trashed. Unless the two actually manage to avoid conflict initially, while no doubt throwing mountains of insults and abuse at each other.
Can see a significant boost in the Canadian population as the vast majority of the people not made insane by the ASB, once they realise what has happened seek to get the hell out of Dodge.
PS If we're getting to the point of discussion it as a TL should it be set up as a separate thread?
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Aug 12, 2019 20:01:42 GMT
I think that to reduce the inevitably herculean chaos that'll take control of the country with the impending civil war, maybe everyone who voted in each state just joins the camp of whichever state went to which candidate, so Democrats in Texas would flock to the fascist bloc, while Republicans in California get absorbed into the communist one. And the two nominees lead the distinct sides that form, with G.W. Bush heading the Red States and Al Gore the Blue ones. As for those who support neither of the two dominant political parties, maybe non-voters and members of comparatively minor factions remain sane and lay low. Those looking to defend themselves could form mutual-aid militias and resistance groups. Rebel Alliance-inspired Libertarian Party, anyone? Oh, and maybe we should get rid of (or at least dramatically cap the supply of) nukes, too. As grinding, blood-drenched and atrocity-prone as the incoming war will be, I'd like to keep an irradiated wasteland that spans the former United States from taking shape, at least in the short term.
That would reduce the infighting inside states but could make things worse in the wider conflict as both sides would be fairly homogeneous apart from the non-voters and members of minor party groups. Either way its going to be a huge mess and as you say nukes could make it a hell of a lot worse.
Moving it to a set date, say 2000 rather than in 1940 does mean we get a coherent way of getting the two sides allocated and does mean the world doesn't have to deal with this insanity while in the midst of WWII. I think that possibly the ASB removes all nuclear forces or at least renders them inoperable. Although this does make the US vulnerable to attacks from other nuclear powers, along with areas under the US nuclear umbrella. Going to be messy in Korea I fear and there is the possibility of Russia trying something nasty in Europe or the ME say given the new opportunities.
Presumably foreigners caught in the US at that point would be unaffected - at least until whichever brutal bloc they find themselves in gets hold of them but hopefully many will escape. What will happen with US expats abroad? Are they also unaffected? This could include USA forces based abroad and their weapons, which if their persuaded not to dash home and try and sort out the mess their homeland has becomes could help maintain stability outside the US a bit.
If all voters for the two main parties are transformed into committed supporters of the two totalitarian regimes I can't see any way this doesn't end up with virtually all the US totally trashed. Unless the two actually manage to avoid conflict initially, while no doubt throwing mountains of insults and abuse at each other.
Can see a significant boost in the Canadian population as the vast majority of the people not made insane by the ASB, once they realise what has happened seek to get the hell out of Dodge.
PS If we're getting to the point of discussion it as a TL should it be set up as a separate thread?
Agreed. At this point, I'm also hoping that @lordroel gives us the green light to start a separate thread with this premise. To address the in-scenario points you make, maybe US nukes only become operable IFF a foreign power is prepared to launch their own nuclear strike on them? That way the civil war lasts without going topsy-turvy due to Russia, China or some other player bombing the hell out of them for whatever reason. Being noncitizens, foreigners would remain as they were before the mass-brainwashing takes place, as would American expatriates and government personnel who are overseas at this time. And I'm not sure what Canada would do to get their share of the clusterfuck under control. The fact that they have a border with the former United States is no doubt perilous, and the oncoming refugee crisis would make the one in present-day Europe look almost tame by comparison. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,923
Likes: 49,326
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 13, 2019 2:43:27 GMT
That would reduce the infighting inside states but could make things worse in the wider conflict as both sides would be fairly homogeneous apart from the non-voters and members of minor party groups. Either way its going to be a huge mess and as you say nukes could make it a hell of a lot worse.
Moving it to a set date, say 2000 rather than in 1940 does mean we get a coherent way of getting the two sides allocated and does mean the world doesn't have to deal with this insanity while in the midst of WWII. I think that possibly the ASB removes all nuclear forces or at least renders them inoperable. Although this does make the US vulnerable to attacks from other nuclear powers, along with areas under the US nuclear umbrella. Going to be messy in Korea I fear and there is the possibility of Russia trying something nasty in Europe or the ME say given the new opportunities.
Presumably foreigners caught in the US at that point would be unaffected - at least until whichever brutal bloc they find themselves in gets hold of them but hopefully many will escape. What will happen with US expats abroad? Are they also unaffected? This could include USA forces based abroad and their weapons, which if their persuaded not to dash home and try and sort out the mess their homeland has becomes could help maintain stability outside the US a bit.
If all voters for the two main parties are transformed into committed supporters of the two totalitarian regimes I can't see any way this doesn't end up with virtually all the US totally trashed. Unless the two actually manage to avoid conflict initially, while no doubt throwing mountains of insults and abuse at each other. Can see a significant boost in the Canadian population as the vast majority of the people not made insane by the ASB, once they realise what has happened seek to get the hell out of Dodge.
PS If we're getting to the point of discussion it as a TL should it be set up as a separate thread?
Agreed. At this point, I'm also hoping that @lordroel gives us the green light to start a separate thread with this premise. To address the in-scenario points you make, maybe US nukes only become operable IFF a foreign power is prepared to launch their own nuclear strike on them? That way the civil war lasts without going topsy-turvy due to Russia, China or some other player bombing the hell out of them for whatever reason. Being noncitizens, foreigners would remain as they were before the mass-brainwashing takes place, as would American expatriates and government personnel who are overseas at this time. And I'm not sure what Canada would do to get their share of the clusterfuck under control. The fact that they have a border with the former United States is no doubt perilous, and the oncoming refugee crisis would make the one in present-day Europe look almost tame by comparison. I agrea and you can start a separate thread for this discussion if you like. |
|
- then the proportional death toll is going to be at least as bad and quite possibly the overall death toll. Remembering that in this scenario the eastern front is likely to be even bloodier as Germany will face less pressure from the west without the US and Russia will get no L-L from the US. The other option is that at some point the leaders of both sides realise they have more to lose from continuing the fighting and come to terms but how many millions or tens of millions might be dead by then? 