1. Mewditto
    Offline

    Mewditto Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0

    United States Civil War Free-For-All (What?)

    Discussion in 'Research' started by Mewditto, Mar 24, 2011.

    So basically, I want to make a story of a war between each state of the united states, around 90 years in the future, each state started to build up and army and weapons, some better than others. So my main research question is,

    Which states would do the best? I imagine texas, but their problem is they have a very large amount of area that is uninhabited, so they could get taken easier, but, since it is the future, they may have inhabited the areas, would they?
     
  2. Ellipse
    Offline

    Ellipse Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2010
    Messages:
    714
    Likes Received:
    32
    Naturally, the states with the largest populations would have the largest armies. So yea, Texas and California would definately be candidates.

    Having vast amounts of land isn't necessarily a good thing, as you've already figured out. It would make guarding the border difficult. But if you think about it, most of those uninhabited areas are desert. No one lives there because there isn't anything there. No easily accessable water sources, buildings, or roads. If there is nothing to make holding the area worthwhile, no one is going to bother with it.

    But if in your future someone builds roads, a base/buildings, and a water channel things would be very different.
     
  3. TWErvin2
    Offline

    TWErvin2 Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,528
    Likes Received:
    561
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    Which are self sufficient? Which have terrain that can be defended. 90 years? What kind of technology will be available? What side will be the most ruthless: destroy crops, bio warfare, chemical warfare, EMPs and nuclear warfare.

    Will some states become allies, treachery? Support from outside the USA? Will other countries snip at weak states? Will trade be a factor? Big populations yes, but also you have to feed and provide water and shelter. What political systems will each state have? How dedicated/fanatical will the populations be? Will they revolt? What about family ties?

    Nobody can tell you all of this? It's your novel. Study military history, study weapons and tactics, study the states, decide where the world will be and why? Use your imagination and then write and see where it takes you.
     
    1 person likes this.
  4. Darkhunter
    Offline

    Darkhunter New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2011
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've run this idea through my head before (Well at least what would happen to Maine in the future if the US was at war with itself/Military.) Here's what I came up with for Maine:

    I'd say Maine would either jump to Canada or would set up a coastal defense system to defend themselves. Having lived in Maine myself for 20 years I can tell you that they may blow up the bridge to New Hampshire and set up a state perimeter the to road boarders to NH and they might be able to strike up a deal with Canada for supplies.

    Also in Maine there are more guns than people overall... more like northern Maine actually. Southern Maine would most likely be a warzone with York county and parts of Cumberland along the turnpike completely wiped out while north of Augusta would be moderately untouched while the islands would be most likely controlled by Militia, Police, Coast Guard and Guerrilla groups.

    Farmers would most likely be the rulers of areas or at least certain areas. Their livestock/crops would give them bargaining and at last where I live they ALL have guns... and lots of them.

    The State Police/Sheriffs Departments would possibly be THE LAW overall. They'd be the know all end all to any disagreements, possibly working together or possibly fighting for territories all over the state amongst themselves.

    All the ideas I have for myself. You can take what you want from this idea or throw it out as I'm never really gonna use it as I tend to be more into horror myself.
     
  5. Ellipse
    Offline

    Ellipse Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2010
    Messages:
    714
    Likes Received:
    32
    I just thought of another thing to mention. First, you need to decide how many sides there are to this war. Is it California vs the USA? Or is it Southern USA vs Western USA vs Eastern USA? Does the USA still have a central government that is battling against rogue states? Does the USA even exist at this point?

    I'm asking this because the United Nations and some of the other world organizations have treaties where if a war breaks out in a country and it is an insurrection, then outside countries are not allowed to interfere. However, if the war is between two recognized nations, either nation can ask for help from neighboring countries.

    I'll use the American Civil War as an example. Despite the name, 'the Civil War,' the North was doing everything it could to make it appear as though the South was committing insurrection. As long as the North did not recognize the South as a separate nation, the South could not openly trade with France, England, or any other country. This is one of the many things that hurt the South during the American Civil War.
     
  6. Islander
    Offline

    Islander Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,542
    Likes Received:
    59
    Location:
    Sweden
    To wage war, you need access to raw materials like coal, steel and oil, and also the industries to process and manufacture them into weapons. You also need a reliable food supply so the population won't starve, and all the items the economy needs to work, from personal computers to light bulbs.

    This would make it very hard for individual states to wage war. Some states would be without natural resources, others without the industries to make weapons of them, other would have the right weapons but starve to death.
    If a state had no tire manufacturing plants, their cars would eventually stop running, people would have trouble getting to work, the stores wouldn't get deliveries, food wouldn't be able to get off the farms, and so on. And that's just one small example of how dependent the economy is on things manufactured elsewhere.

    In a modern or futuristic war, the raw materials and industries may be slightly different. I imagine materials like uranium (for power sources) and rare earth metals (for electronics) would be important, and that you'd need your own hi-tech industry to build missile guidance systems, battle suits, spy drones, communications disruptors, and so on. Generally, the economy becomes more and more specialised over time and more and more dependent on things manufactured elsewhere.

    A state would need to have an extremely good reason to go to war, because they'd likely hurt themselves far more than they could hope to gain.
     
  7. Link the Writer
    Offline

    Link the Writer Flipping Out For A Good Story. Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    11,210
    Likes Received:
    4,222
    Location:
    Alabama, USA
    Now how did I miss this?

    For starters, do what Islander said.

    Also, think of foreign allies the states could use. Maybe Texas can goade Mexico into joining on the promise of reclaiming New Mexico and California?

    Think of the Revolution. Which states were loyal to the king back in that war? Maybe those states can make Britain recall how long ago their young men fought for the monarchy and ask them for help?

    Other states would try and create their own confederations against everyone else.
     
  8. Louis Farizee
    Offline

    Louis Farizee Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2011
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Figure out the causes of the war and you're three quarters of the way to figuring out the allies and battleground.

    Basically every way in the history of war has been, ultimately, about economics. War is armed robbery on an international scale. One country has something the other country wants, and they decide to take it by force.

    Civil wars are even nastier. Civil wars are family squabbling over economics. If you've ever seen sisters in law fight over their dead mother in laws jewelery or sons fighting over who inherits the family business, there's economics mixed with personal animosity.

    The American Civil War, for example. Whether or not you buy the whole "states rights" argument, the underlying cause of the war was the Southern States being unable to compete economically without the free labor slavery provided versus the Southern States' self image as aristocratic gentlemen-farmers versus the Northern States' need to feel morally superior to the Southern States which automatically gave them the right to tell them what to do versus the economic pressures of mass immigration to the Northern States due to the Irish Potato Famine (which, it should be noted, gave the North the advantages of literal boatloads of cheap labor without the moral disadvantage of slavery with the added bonus of being able to fire immigrants when they got too sick or old to work), and on and on and on.

    Figure out who has more resources than manpower and who has more manpower than resources. That'll be your two sides.
     
  9. chacotaco91
    Offline

    chacotaco91 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2011
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Lexington KY
    Your right about the economics as the backdrop for everything. Morality usually just gives war each its own individualistic flair, but almost never is actually what propelled it. In a nutshell, the civil war wasn't motivated by slavery. I wished people would stop calling it a civil war as well, since it doesn't even fit the definition of a civil war. A civil war is when two factions compete for control over an entire territory. The south wasn't fighting for control of the entire nation, only for secession. That makes it a war of independence/secession, but the north would not want to call it that because it made the southern cause sound more justifiable.

    From what I picked up, the south seceded because of their reliance on northern manufacturing for their goods. Their low population meant that federal politics became dominated by the north, and thus the north set government standards and tariffs that made southern exportation outside the country infeasible. For the southern business elite, that would not do. It basically devalued their own exports because they had nowhere else to send it to except for northern manufacturing.

    So maybe if you'd want to take a few pointers from the civil war from your own book I would have two motivations for the war: The real reason behind it, and the reason told by the politicians to the keep people fighting the war.

    My ideas for likely scenarios:
    1: Economic collapse scenario that would leave factions vying for control of the remnants of the United States.

    2: Slow degeneration of the U.S. government, and war becomes inevitable after two sides realize that have mutually exclusive goals for control of some part of the United States. War would start off in a sort of terrorist like style, then escalate. I could see this possible as the rise of things like nano-tech and the growing depletion of the carbon-energy market makes entire state actors less influential then say city or local government actors.
     
  10. jonathan hernandez13
    Offline

    jonathan hernandez13 Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    5,040
    Likes Received:
    63
    Location:
    Mount Vernon New York

    The question depends on a number of things, which would theoretically be all hypothetical since we are talking 90 years in the future, a long time in terms of technology.

    It is a common misconception that larger armies are "better", the trend now with modern armies is smaller, more efficient, and better integrated. The large armies died in the cold war, nowadays all it takes is a button to start a nuke fight. Our new enemies fight in small bands of guerillas and terrorist cells, that is the future.

    More important than any such hypothetical is making a convincing reason why all the states are fighting one another, because it sounds extremely unlikely as of right now. My two cents.


    Corporal Hernandez, FNCO USMC:cool:
     
  11. Fang990
    Offline

    Fang990 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    right here
    I'm from texas, where most everyone has a gun and most all of them know how to use it, so I could easily see us becoming very militarized. At the moment have one of the best economies, due to the oil industry.

    Our large ground would be a problem, but I would imagine many Texans fighting with gorilla warfare against any occupying force. We also tend to be very proud that we used to be our own nation, a reemergence of The Republic of Texas would not be out of the question in such senario.

    Also instead of individual states going war against each other there should be groups of states, espcially in the northeast where each state is so tiny. This would make the most sense for pooling of resources and such.

    It really all depends on the direction you want to take it. 90yrs is a long time and A LOT can happen.
     
  12. Daggers
    Offline

    Daggers Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2011
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Ankh-Morpork
    You know it's an interesting concept. I don't know if you have ever watched the TV series Jericho but the 2nd series (or what was made of it before cancellation) focuses and builds up to this idea of a new civil war. Sadly we don't get to see how it eventually plays out because the powers that be decided to cancel the show.

    You should definitely consider that it's unlike every state will be out for themselves. I would say in all likelihood there would be 2 or 3 regions of member states allied together.

    Then again, that's just my thoughts on the matter. I'm certain you could make it work whatever direction you took it in.

    Also with your setting of 2100 the world is your oyster really when it comes to the technology and warfare employed. Will there be cybernetically or genetically enhanced soldiers? Definitely a lot of flexibility with this story!
     

Share This Page