History, Politics And Current Affairs

Twitchy chimes in.

https://twitchy.com/brettt/2023/12/13/t ... e-n2390790

Sounds like previous posters in this thread.

There are two things that would happen in a civil war:

1. Trucks stop moving.
2. Crops don't get planted.

This leads to:

3. 99% of the population dies in a year.

Now, a civil war movie could have been interesting. The armored forces of the Lone Star Republic against the West Coast Federation making like Gudarian against each other across the deserts of Arizona and New Mexico. Mechanized infantry running encounter battles across the landscapes where the AotP and the ANV once fought. Scenes from Barksdale and Minot and the USS Maine, where the commanders are running base security and trying to determine who is actually in command of the missiles and bombers.

Poohbah wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2023 4:33 pm 3. 99% of the population dies in a year.

I think you're overestimating it. Probably at least 60% dead, but I would think no more than 80%. As an absolute tops, 90% dead in 10 years, before the population starts rising.

That's if there's not an invasion from Canada, to politely tell us that they're taking over and to knock that shit off.

Poohbah wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2023 4:33 pm There are two things that would happen in a civil war:

1. Trucks stop moving.
2. Crops don't get planted.

This leads to:

3. 99% of the population dies in a year.

It won’t take that long. Most people don’t have skills like butchering or making more complex foods from base materials, so if processed food chains go down, we’re going to have lots of people dying within a month.

Especially in places where New York, where bodega-style grocery shopping and apartment living means that people don’t have the habit of or ability to stockpile food.

kdahm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2023 7:49 pm

Poohbah wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2023 4:33 pm 3. 99% of the population dies in a year.

I think you're overestimating it. Probably at least 60% dead, but I would think no more than 80%. As an absolute tops, 90% dead in 10 years, before the population starts rising.

That's if there's not an invasion from Canada, to politely tell us that they're taking over and to knock that shit off.

How many people can butcher their own meat or grind their own flour? A lot of the basics skills for feeding ourselves are no longer in the population because we specialized it out.

The folks who live in urban areas are going to be those most dependent upon the skills of others if they’re going to survive a siege. And I have very little faith that the government of, say, Chicago, could organize food service the way, say, Paris did in 1870 or Leningrad did in 1941 to utilize those skills.

And that assumes the civil war is just geographic and not also class based. If it’s class based, then all bets are off.

Johnnie Lyle wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2023 8:17 pm

kdahm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2023 7:49 pm

Poohbah wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2023 4:33 pm 3. 99% of the population dies in a year.

I think you're overestimating it. Probably at least 60% dead, but I would think no more than 80%. As an absolute tops, 90% dead in 10 years, before the population starts rising.

That's if there's not an invasion from Canada, to politely tell us that they're taking over and to knock that shit off.

How many people can butcher their own meat or grind their own flour? A lot of the basics skills for feeding ourselves are no longer in the population because we specialized it out.

The folks who live in urban areas are going to be those most dependent upon the skills of others if they’re going to survive a siege. And I have very little faith that the government of, say, Chicago, could organize food service the way, say, Paris did in 1870 or Leningrad did in 1941 to utilize those skills.

And that assumes the civil war is just geographic and not also class based. If it’s class based, then all bets are off.

Depends on what you mean by class, but probably yes. That's the hard part of this, there are no hard geographical boundaries for most of the issues, so while you can generally call "red" or "blue" areas it won't stop a lot of stuff to simply put up a fence.

46 million Americans, according to the last census, in rural areas. A lot of people know how to grow things, even if most of them only do it on a hobby or supplemental basis. Around 40 million people buy fishing licenses and around 16 million buy hunting licenses.

The big cities will be charnel houses, horrific places of mass death where no stray dog or cat will be safe. But 99% would only leave under 4 million alive, and that's simply too pessimistic without a persistent biological warfare threat. In one year. The food shortages really won't hit extremes until Year 2, when the stockpiles of canned and preserved stuff in the warehouses is gone. Years 3-5 will be the great winnowing, where the marginal producers and unlucky are pushed over the edge.

That is, of course, assuming isolation and the rest of the world not stepping in. They would have to have their own troubles in addition to one of the G5 disappearing.

You would also have to factor the lack of running water, power, and sewage lines. I also suspect once city dwellers try moving out there will be clashing with some trying to strong arm (rob) people into supplying them. Once word gets out, people will blockage their areas and start shooting at anyone coming in.

kdahm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2023 8:41 pm 46 million Americans, according to the last census, in rural areas. A lot of people know how to grow things, even if most of them only do it on a hobby or supplemental basis. Around 40 million people buy fishing licenses and around 16 million buy hunting licenses.

The big cities will be charnel houses, horrific places of mass death where no stray dog or cat will be safe. But 99% would only leave under 4 million alive, and that's simply too pessimistic without a persistent biological warfare threat. In one year. The food shortages really won't hit extremes until Year 2, when the stockpiles of canned and preserved stuff in the warehouses is gone. Years 3-5 will be the great winnowing, where the marginal producers and unlucky are pushed over the edge.

That is, of course, assuming isolation and the rest of the world not stepping in. They would have to have their own troubles in addition to one of the G5 disappearing.

I think you’re being very optimistic about food stocks. Stuart put it at closer to 72 hours, at least in urban areas.

Johnnie Lyle wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2023 9:35 pm I think you’re being very optimistic about food stocks. Stuart put it at closer to 72 hours, at least in urban areas.

I believe that was when the fresh food starts running out. It's when the mass panic and civil disorder really kicks in.

My one year is when the stockpiles and hoards run out. After the survivors have killed or driven off most of those in the cities. Once the grocery store distribution centers have been seized by armed gangs, previously existing or ad hoc, and used as a base for months. When the stuff that has been rationed and guarded gets eaten. Some will last six months. Some will be nine. Some may extend to 15 months. But when there's nothing left to scavenge and most of the houses have been rummaged through, then there will be another round of killings and starvation.

That year will be dreadful in the cities. Poor access to water, little power except portable generators, sewage by digging an outhouse. Most of the people in the cities will either die or will try to move out to somewhere that does have resources, only to run into those who have and want to hold onto it. Move along or die, and Jemhouston said.

kdahm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2023 9:53 pm

Johnnie Lyle wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2023 9:35 pm I think you’re being very optimistic about food stocks. Stuart put it at closer to 72 hours, at least in urban areas.

I believe that was when the fresh food starts running out. It's when the mass panic and civil disorder really kicks in.

My one year is when the stockpiles and hoards run out. After the survivors have killed or driven off most of those in the cities. Once the grocery store distribution centers have been seized by armed gangs, previously existing or ad hoc, and used as a base for months. When the stuff that has been rationed and guarded gets eaten. Some will last six months. Some will be nine. Some may extend to 15 months. But when there's nothing left to scavenge and most of the houses have been rummaged through, then there will be another round of killings and starvation.

That year will be dreadful in the cities. Poor access to water, little power except portable generators, sewage by digging an outhouse. Most of the people in the cities will either die or will try to move out to somewhere that does have resources, only to run into those who have and want to hold onto it. Move along or die, and Jemhouston said.

Not just fresh food. Grocery stores and warehouses don’t keep all that much stuff in stock, even in the post-COVID supply chain problems era.

Past experience with disasters is that people outside a select few don’t stockpile, especially in cities where space is at a premium. Ability to stockpile food is very much a prerequisite of wealth - which means suburbs, on average. It’s not the habit of most urban wealthy.

You can stretch that out a lot by killing people off (overtly or through starvation), but you’re going to have most of the population of urban areas run short in a few months, max. They’re just too dependent upon constant resupply.

Just in time shipping means the stores only have 3 days at most. I often see holes in the shelves when shopping right now, nothing really serious but we still haven't recovered from the Covid shutdown. Warehouses will have more but again, that may only be a 3 day turnover.

Almost everyone will be screwed one way or another if we fall apart. Western peace keepers are the only ones worth their salt as I understand it, and everyone will be out for themselves, which means all the troublemakers will be taking advantage everywhere.

Our church is known for advocating a year supply of food. Few get that much, and a while back they changed it to six weeks, because they knew they'd still have trouble getting people to have that much.

I live in San Diego.

Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink...

Southern California gets over 50% of its water from the California Aqueduct.

One glance at the map shows you the problem. The southern terminus of the actual aqueduct is in the San Joaquin Valley. The water is actually used in Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties.

The Tehachapi Mountains are in the way.

No problem! We'll just pump 40% of the flow volume of the Mississippi River almost 2,000 feet up to get it over the mountains! Over 1 million horsepower, consuming up to 787MW of electricity!

(I should mention that California imports electric power from as far away as Arkansas, with most of the power contributed by Arkansas getting used to heat the high-tension lines instead of being usable power delivered to the customer.)

And if it falters, holy shit, things get ugly fast. Particularly when you consider Los Angeles also has ginormous soda straws going to Parker Dam on the Colorado River and into the Owens Valley, and none of the locals are happy about it.

Putting Southern California on half rations of water because everyone east of Cali pulled the plug means making real choices with real winners and real losers. And the losers aren't going to have the luxury of going to court.

If the locals in Owens Valley and the Colorado River Valley then decide to seize LADWP's facilities, Los Angeles loses 80% of its water.

That's not "tough decisions" time. That's "people are going to die" time.

In a disunion scenario, Los Angeles would need its own armed forces--and not a small one, and not just a heavily armed constabulary force, but things like armor and artillery, plus a good-sized air force--to project sufficient power as far away as Hetch Hetchy and Mono Lake to the north and Lake Havasu to the east, just to ensure the security of its water supply. And they would likely demand that the rest of Southern California pay fealty to keep their water coming. And they'd need a sizable domestic head-bashing force to keep the local proles from getting too uppity.

I could see riots getting started within 24 hours, and I could easily see a 99% die-off south of the Tehachapis.

Nik_SpeakerToCats wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 10:23 pm I thought the arm / torch flexed / swayed ??

That was only after the Stantz/ Parker slime modification.

Poohbah quick question, what would Mexico do if Civil War breaks out? I'm figuring Mexico would block the border to keep people from moving south. Beyond that, I'm not sure.


Canada, I almost see Trudeau coming on the more left-wing side with supplies, and maybe troops securing areas opposing DC.

jemhouston wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2023 2:43 pm Poohbah quick question, what would Mexico do if Civil War breaks out? I'm figuring Mexico would block the border to keep people from moving south. Beyond that, I'm not sure.

You figure correctly. They don't even want their own people back. America is an extremely important safety valve for Mexico, and a civil war takes that away. It also takes away the American export market.

Once they've done that, they're likely to observe pretty strict neutrality until it becomes obvious who's going to win, then they'll pretend they were always the winners' BFF.

Also, a follow-up analysis of Los Angeles as a city state says that they'd have to be able to project power from Western New Mexico to Prudhoe Bay.

Poohbah wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 2:35 am

jemhouston wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2023 2:43 pm Poohbah quick question, what would Mexico do if Civil War breaks out? I'm figuring Mexico would block the border to keep people from moving south. Beyond that, I'm not sure.

You figure correctly. They don't even want their own people back. America is an extremely important safety valve for Mexico, and a civil war takes that away. It also takes away the American export market.

Once they've done that, they're likely to observe pretty strict neutrality until it becomes obvious who's going to win, then they'll pretend they were always the winners' BFF.

Also, a follow-up analysis of Los Angeles as a city state says that they'd have to be able to project power from Western New Mexico to Prudhoe Bay.

From what you were saying the other day, LA as a city-state would need plenty of friends with plenty of spare water, and the force protection capability to secure those water lines.

Craiglxviii wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 11:04 am

Poohbah wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 2:35 am

jemhouston wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2023 2:43 pm Poohbah quick question, what would Mexico do if Civil War breaks out? I'm figuring Mexico would block the border to keep people from moving south. Beyond that, I'm not sure.

You figure correctly. They don't even want their own people back. America is an extremely important safety valve for Mexico, and a civil war takes that away. It also takes away the American export market.

Once they've done that, they're likely to observe pretty strict neutrality until it becomes obvious who's going to win, then they'll pretend they were always the winners' BFF.

Also, a follow-up analysis of Los Angeles as a city state says that they'd have to be able to project power from Western New Mexico to Prudhoe Bay.

From what you were saying the other day, LA as a city-state would need plenty of friends with plenty of spare water, and the force protection capability to secure those water lines.

Exactly.

Okay, let's take a gander at the geopolitics of Los Angeles. Let us assume that both the federal and state governments are unavailable due to civil war and alien space bats . . .

The population of the Greater Los Angeles Metropolitan Area, depending on how one defines the term, ranges from 12.5 to 18.5 million, and would (at the upper figure) make this region the 67th most populated country in the world, displacing Kazakhstan. (Sorry, Borat!)

This enormous mass of humanity lives in a coastal chaparral environment. The average rainfall in the City of Los Angeles proper is 14.77 inches/37.5 centimeters per year, and 92% of it falls between November 1 and April 30. The Greater Los Angeles Metro also sits at the northern edge of the great desert latitudes, which are caused by the descent of air circulating from the intertropical convergence zone; as the air ascends, it is dried out, and the dry air's descent removes cloud cover.

As one can see, there isn't much water. So how does Los Angeles survive? It's simple, really: they suck water from elsewhere.

Los Angeles has three major sources of water:

1. The Los Angeles Aqueduct, which brings water from the Owens Valley watershed;
2. The Colorado River Aqueduct, which brings water from the Parker Dam on the Colorado River; and
3. The California Aqueduct, part of the larger State Water Project, which brings water from the Sierra Nevada snowpack.

All three of these aqueducts are, for the most part, beyond the boundaries of the Los Angeles Metro; the first is owned by Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, the second by the Southern California Metropolitan Water District, and the last by the state of California.

The Los Angeles Aqueduct ended up destroying agriculture in the Owens Valley, turned Owens Lake into a dry lake bed, and would have destroyed Mono Lake without legal intervention. The aqueduct led to what became known as "California's Water Wars" in the 1920s. In a civil war scenario, the residents of Owens Valley are not going to give an airborne fornication at a rolling fried pastry about Los Angeles' water security issues, and they will likely seek to divert water from the Los Angeles Aqueduct to more useful purposes, such as growing food.

The Colorado River Aqueduct has the problem of starting at the California-Arizona border, and Arizona has its own water security issues; this is another source of conflict.

The California Aqueduct has two issues: first, it's in the San Joaquin Valley, which wants the water for farming; second, it's the single biggest user of electricity in the entire state, because that water has to be pumped over the Tehachapi Mountains (it's about a 2,000-foot lift), and California is a net importer of electrical power. The Colorado River Aqueduct carries some rather more modest power requirements, but they're a lesser included case.

So, Los Angeles needs water and electricity, and there is no amenable authority for ensuring they get it. In theory, they can trade for it; but they will need to secure the trade flows.

WATER SECURITY:

Los Angeles must be able to ensure that it can maintain control of Parker Dam on the Colorado River. However, this is downstream of both Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams in Arizona. So those dams must be secured for both their water impoundment capacity and electric power. So we're already talking about a force sufficient to take on three states' worth of troops, including forces that could be raised by them. This suggests at least a mechanized corps.

Los Angeles must be able to ensure the security of the Los Angeles Aqueduct against a historically hostile populace. This requires a robust counterinsurgency capability; we will nominally assume a division equivalent of special operations forces.

Securing the California Aqueduct will require the ability to project power into the San Joaquin Valley and up to Hetch Hetchy Dam; a combined corps of mechanized and motorized troops would be useful for this mission.

ELECTRICITY SECURITY:

California imports electricity from as far away as Arkansas. Expecting Los Angeles to be able to project power that far is a tad much. However, they do need to be able to ensure that power is delivered to meet both their own considerable electrical power requirements for their major industries (entertainment, primarily) and to ensure that the water flows over Tejon Pass. Airpower will be crucial; the ability to rapidly deliver troops to crisis sites will be key to ensuring the lights and pumps stay on. This will require the ability to seize powerplants as far away as the Idaho/Montana border, Wyoming, and western Colorado. This mission will likely require an airborne/air assault corps, with sufficient tactical and operational airlift capacity to support it.

A good chunk of this water goes south to Orange and San Diego Counties, and east to San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. Part of Los Angeles' diplomatic strategy would be to impartially distribute the water

Part of this security is fuel security. Los Angeles must possess a credible ability to control crucial areas. Valdez, Alaska is the key to energy security; the city must maintain a credible capability to project power ashore at Valdez, which will enable operations to secure the Alaska Pipeline and Prudhoe Bay. This suggests roughly a division of Marines and sufficient amphibious lift capacity to accommodate them, plus sufficient combatants to escort them on their mission. Once ashore, the Marines can establish a FOB to support operations further north.

Further, Los Angeles must be able to project sufficient power into Santa Barbara to reopen exploitation of offshore crude reservoirs in the Santa Barbara Channel. This is a lesser included issue with the ORBAT proposed.

Airpower sufficient to complement the land forces is a given; assume four tactical fighter wings and four aerial refueling wings for the moment.

NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY:

Naturally, Los Angeles wants to achieve these goals without bloodshed; the purpose of this military force is to make it clear that crossing Los Angeles is A Very Stupid Idea. Indeed, by oversupplying these forces, Los Angeles may be able to form alliances with other powers in the region by serving as the hegemon of choice. However, there is a special issue.

DRANG NACH SÜDEN

The northern boundary of Greater Los Angeles is the Tehachapis; the eastern boundary is the San Bernardino Mountains and the Mojave Desert; the southeastern boundary is the San Joaquin Hills and the Santa Ana Mountains.

There is no natural southern boundary.

What passes for a southern boundary is Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. Without it, the entire I-5 corridor from Oceanside to Orange County would be a string of housing developments and strip malls, and the entire region would be utterly dominated by Los Angeles. Indeed, there has been a persistent (but low-key) effort to remove the Marine base since the end of World War II; this was actually proposed by Barbara Boxer during her 1992 Senate campaign (and very hastily withdrawn). (Rumor had it that the proposal was more or less bought with Los Angeles developer PAC money.)

Los Angeles needs to resist the urge to develop Camp Pendleton. It will cause much resentment in San Diego County, which Los Angeles desperately needs as a satisfied client state/protectorate. One counterinsurgency is more than enough.

Now how much blue water naval ability do they need to keep China from saying "nice state you have there. Be a shame if someone....colonized it."

Kunkmiester wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2023 3:11 pm Now how much blue water naval ability do they need to keep China from saying "nice state you have there. Be a shame if someone....colonized it."

Kunk,

On the other hand, I suspect a CA or Los Angeles government would be all too happy to simply let the PRC in on the basis of their promises and flattery.

Mike