StarDestroyer.Net BBS

If the American Civil War was to happen today between the Union and Confederacy who would win? Let us imagine that the war would only be taking place again along the Atlantic Rim with only the states that had previously engaged in the Civil War engaged today.

Also assume that most Southerners currently serving in the Armed Forces would go South.

No nuclear weapons will be used.

Indiscriminate bombings of cities will not happen unless it really really needs too.

Which side has the guys who control the army?

I think we need more guidelines for such a scenario. Is it 1861 but taking place in a modern scenario (i.e. blacks are slaves) or is it a civil war based on the majority philosophical differences between the perceived "southerner" mentality and "big city north?"

I'll base my thoughts on the latter scenario.

Both sides have military bases, although I think the South has more. The north would have the larger population, but largely less well armed than the south. Not to mention nowadays you would have splinter states/factions joining one side or the other. If push came to shove I think Nevada is more in line with a "south" ideology, for example.

I think the South would win due to the more prevalent "gun culture" as there will be a larger block of armed citizen militias taking up arms along with the standing military. It's hard to argue with a basic principle about a gunfight. The first rule is, have a gun. One gun with a high capacity magazine is worth a brace of unarmed people.

If the run up to this war was the same as it was for the first American civil war then the North would win do to the near non existence of any form of state militia. A mass of gun owners very few of which have suitable weaponry will not last long against a modern army in the field. Really it would just be on big long blood guerrilla campaign with almost no field fighting, at least once words get around that such and such over in such and such tried to block the road and got wiped out by five minutes of artillery fire.

The viability of the whole war is also questionable. In 1861 weaponry and ammo was much easier to make then now. With a divided country it would be hard to make much more then rifles and basic forms of ammo. However the US Federal government could import much of what it needed while the blockade on the South would be airtight.

I think much of the scenario relies on data on military power distribution. but acknowledged, a group of rifle toting guys can't much last against an artillery bombardment. My answer should probably have been started with the question "where's most of the ordnance around these here parts?"

Most of the US military is based in the South and West. However the US military is rather more substantial then the 30 regiments of 1861 while state militias generally exist only on paper.

it's hard to say how effective a force the citizen militias would be, but consider that quite a few of them would be ex-military themselves. armed citizens in the states can number in the millions which is considerably more than the size of the combined US military. With a proper general this could potentially be used to great effect.

I'm gonna bow out of further discussion on this topic. Going on 40 hours now without any real sleep (unless you count 2 hours of resting "sleep") and still facing another 8 hours awake. Trying to squeeze anything meaningful out of my head beyond a sound bite or two is probably not a great idea right now.

nechronius wrote:I think much of the scenario relies on data on military power distribution. but acknowledged, a group of rifle toting guys can't much last against an artillery bombardment. My answer should probably have been started with the question "where's most of the ordnance around these here parts?"

The majority of the military is southern and midwest by a vary large margin. Also most bases and naval ports are in southern and states plus california (union) The south has a lot more industry now than during the 1860's I think it's safe to say that the south would get most of the army and navy but the north still has more factories...it's reall hard to say with out the midwest and west getting involved

Again you have the same problems as in the original (I've just been watching the Ken Burns series on the Civil War - all 14 hours worth)...

The North has WAY more industrial and manpower capacity than the south - meaning that the South needs a fast victory before the North can get rolling.

Also it would have to be decided which way the unsettled territories at the time would sway nowadays.

What does California have in common with the South?

Howedar wrote:What does California have in common with the South?

Maybe you guys could REALLY have some fun and have a nice big 3-way war. West Coast and Central/Northwest, the Midwest/East and the South...

Hmmm...

You can not claim anything already located in the south is suddenly going to choose to be from the south. You have to acknowledge that having a standing military as the US has that a great many of the people serving in it are from the north. That alone puts a heft Federal force in the south. Furthermore you have to factor in all the over seas postings where people can't automaticaly jump ship and change sides. Almost any base located off US soil is invaraibly going to side with the Federal government. A large portion of the US navy will do so as well. The south will be able to take control of certain US hardware, but thats about it. Given the population centers, the legality of the entire event, who controls what aspects of the military, etc... The south still couldn't win.

Howedar wrote:What does California have in common with the South?

I might be wrong, but I think California was part of the North.

Not sure, but that's what I think. Of course, back then California didn't really have much to contribute anyway.

Shinova wrote:
I might be wrong, but I think California was part of the North.

California was with the North

No Lee=Union cakewalk

1.)Who can organise an army/Navy first out of the old US army.
2.)Who can strike first and where with how much effect
3.)Who has the factories to supply a modern war
4.)Who has the skilled labour to make the nessary munitions.
5.) Who has the bigger population.

Unless there is a stalemate with both sides hightech factories are crippled, then you would see a move to older technology and methods.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Shinova wrote:
I might be wrong, but I think California was part of the North.

California was with the North

Yes, California sided with the North and we would again today. California gold helped finance the Union.

Darth Gojira wrote:No Lee=Union cakewalk

No McClellan = even bigger Union cakewalk.

TrailerParkJawa wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Shinova wrote:
I might be wrong, but I think California was part of the North.

California was with the North

Yes, California sided with the North and we would again today. California gold helped finance the Union.

Bah! Who are you kidding? California would sieze on this chance to secede on it's own!

...and the rest of us would let them go.

HemlockGrey wrote:...and the rest of us would let them go.

So that we could take the time to plan a proper area bombing campaign.

Stuart Mackey wrote:1.)Who can organise an army/Navy first out of the old US army.
2.)Who can strike first and where with how much effect
3.)Who has the factories to supply a modern war
4.)Who has the skilled labour to make the nessary munitions.
5.) Who has the bigger population.

Unless there is a stalemate with both sides hightech factories are crippled, then you would see a move to older technology and methods.

1) Naturally, the North as they are only dealing with units leaving. The South has to assemble an army from scratch.
2) Well, the South can attack troops with North sympathies, but those same troops could perhaps gather and smash through the South's frontlines. Also, pilots could trash the airfields they just took off from while ships in port could do likewise.
3) The North is still heavily industrialized.
4) North.
5) The Southern states would be vastly outnumbered by the North.

The biggest problem at the start of a conflict like this is the Union's capital, which is far too close to the frontline for a 21st century war. Maryland would be immediately occupied again and the gov't would probably be moved to Cold War installations.

Shinova wrote:

Howedar wrote:What does California have in common with the South?

I might be wrong, but I think California was part of the North.

Not sure, but that's what I think. Of course, back then California didn't really have much to contribute anyway.

I know. I was responding to the implication that some younger states would side with the Confederacy. None come to mind.

Frank Hipper wrote:Bah! Who are you kidding? California would sieze on this chance to secede on it's own!

Nah, we need federal money. We are so broke its not funny. Although I have to say, the Republic of California sounds pretty cool. I wonder if I would need a passport to ski on the Nevada side of Heavenly Ski Resort.???

StarshipTitanic wrote:
The biggest problem at the start of a conflict like this is the Union's capital, which is far too close to the frontline for a 21st century war. Maryland would be immediately occupied again and the gov't would probably be moved to Cold War installations.

The Cold war hideaway for Congress was in West Virginia and that of the President was a plane. Not going to work real well.