Secession a Second Time

If the South did leave the Union a second time I wonder if Kentucky & Missouri would be retained by force again? For that matter I wonder if Oklahoma, Arizona and New Mexico would be forced back under Union control as well.

Then again it might also allow Virginia to reclaim West Virginia.

All that aside, the South has the weapons this time- whereas the North doesn't have the huge military districts and permanent encampments that the South has. And for what it is worth, the military is held in generally higher esteem than it enjoys in the North East or West coast. Look at it this way- if the Confederacy ever attempted to leave agin, it could shut down the petrochemical supplies for most of the North East in minutes. The South now has modern industrial facilities and factories that simply have no equal in the Northeast or Midwest. Plus we have the Marines, Kings Bay, and Norfolk and even the B2 base in Georgia.

In military terms, unless the Union was willing to launch ICBMs from the overflight country and risk a response from the Trident submarines in the Atlantic as well as the air carrier fleet, there is very little potential that the Union could force a Confederacy to return by conventional military forces.

As to why the CSA might not just be Whistling Dixie in a Graveyard? The cultural differences that get aped and laughed at by the Hollywood film industry & the general disdain that people in the Northeast and Midwest have for someone from the South as a stereotype wouldn't be the issue. The grounds for secession would this time be due to the fact that the South is generally more conservative and less amenable to socialism. The impacts on the South due to acts taken by the Federal government still tend to be as considered as the actions taken towards a red headed step child. Meaning aside from military spending- which the rest of the country doesn't want in its own backyard- the South gets perennially shafted in terms of net outcomes of federal programs. We tend to pave our own roads. Build our own factories. And simply find alternate means of making do without depending on often vanishing Federal funds.

The issue of Southern Governors not accepting the Federal loans intended for unemployment insurance is just one of these examples of the difference between the South and the rest of the country. They aren't declining the aid because the cannot use it. Rather they are declining it because in the fine print, after the Federal aid runs out, the states agree to maintain the newly established levels of payments in perpetuity. Southern Governors know how the Monty Shuffle is played and understand that if history is anything to go by, the Fed will live up to its perpetually unfunded mandates to the South.

The stereotype of hick-seed rednecks driving pickup trucks with ten shotguns in a window and two brain cells is laughed at by the rest of the country as being presumably true. Larry the Cable Guy is nationally popular because the rest of the country thinks people in the South really are that way. But like a Joel Chandler Harris story, all is not what it seems. People in the South laugh at the stereotype because they know it isn't true and is indeed a vast underestimate of the abilities and intelligence of people in the South.

There is a limit to how much anyone will put up with before people start voicing opposition to a government. But in an odd twist, despite being underserved by the Federal Government, I suspect that the South would fight tooth and nail if required to keep the Federal Government in existence. I would expect that if there were to be a secession for a second time, places like the Four Corners, California, or even places like Michigan would be those to reach the end of their fuse first in terms of seeing Washington D.C. as a solution provider instead of an obstacle to be removed by force.

Leia Mais…

Using $100 Artillery Shells to Save Money.

But if you are just using simple artillery shells, you are committing yourself to a strategy that sacrifices accuracy, depends on multiple launchers for the shells, and increases the instances of accidental fratricide & collateral damage. That single smart bomb may cost $50,000, but it also requires less manpower to place into combat, is accurate to within feet, and dramatically lowers fratricide & collateral damage.

Plus, the laser guided munition is a one shot to effectiveness weapon. A mass of artillery could be as high as a 50:1 shot effectiveness.

Weapons development runs in terms of decades. Existing systems may be adequate for the most recent combats. And often, these weapons systems will remain a superior technology for many years. The reality however is that militaries that have not innovated weapons technologies often find themselves behind the 8 ball when combat erupts.

It is very rare that a weapons system is developed that is so superior that it can remain the preeminent technology choice for tactical combat use. For example, the B-52 is a system that has undergone continuous modifications to enable it to maintain its tactical value. But while the B-52 program is decades old, oter systems which took decades to deploy have fallen by the wayside. B-36, B-47, B-57, B-58, & B-70 projects all took millions of dollars to develop ( in today's dollars all were billion + projects. Most saw service, and most were withdrawn from service when their tactical benefits were outweighed by expected combat realities.

In some cases prevailing technologies simply made packages obsolete. Eg the B-36. In other cases the expected role for a weapons system vanished. EG B-47 & B-57. Or in some cases the expected need for a system became so remote that keeping the system on program became the equivalent of making sure you had a sledgehammer for every mosquito. Eg. B-70, B-1, and to some extent the B-2 since the intended number of airframes and general missions for the plane were dramatically scaled back.

The costs with the changes can be mind boggling. For example the B-36 was originally developed to replace the then in service B-29, But even though it took half a decade to deploy the B-36 as originally designed, jet propulsion had become necessary for strategic/tactical bombers. The B-52, B-47, & B-49 were in varying phases of development, but were not ready to deploy. To fill the expected mission need, the B-36's were all retrofitted with tandem engine pods which, lead to the description of the B-36 as "Four burning-Six Turning" plane. Four turbojet engines & six turboprop engines being the source of said power for the plane.

The thing is that the development of plane systems sometimes forces such measures. The B-47 was first started in 1945, didn't get fully deployed until 1960, and was withdrawn in 1965 because it was already obsolete. The B-49 of course took years to develop first as a turbo-prop driven bomber. Then it was changed to turbojet powerplants. And then when the B-52 was judged to be "good enough" to do both strategic and tactical bombing- all the B-49 planes were cut up for scrap.

But consider that on average most plane based systems take at least 15 years to move from request for design to an actual flying system. In the case of the B-2, it was first requested in 1981, had its first test flight in 1989, & had its first delivered operation plane in 1994. That is fourteen years from request to delivery. And like the B-52, the system's original role became different by the time it deployed. The expected 100+ airframes wound up being cut to less than 30. And its nuclear only role was changed to both nuclear and conventional strategic/tactical roles.

The cost of a system like the B-2 is assuredly fantastic. But if you are intending to provide your military with the most tactically flexible and effective weapons platforms, you will need a lot of time to make such systems available. In the passage of time, the expected combat reality may change so much that detrimental things can happen. Such as the need for the system no longer exists as happened to the B-49. The combat effectiveness of a system gets over taken making the system ineffectual as happened to the B-47. The costs associated with the system become to excessive to maintain compared to the tactical advantage offered by the system, as happened to the B-70, B-1 & B-2- resulting in outright cancellations or order reductions.

But however you want to look at it, these programs have a very good track record of offering our military systems that were the best at the time. It may be cheaper to build a single system and then simply maintain that system in quantity to offset the effective combat quality decline. The Soviets did that with their Tupolov bomber systems. They were on par with the B-36 in the 1940's. Were already obsolete by the 1950's compared to any American bomber or interceptor aircraft. And while the Russians are still flying the same original design today, no one realistically expects that those bombers could complete a combat mission unless their mission was taking place in an environment of zero air opposition.

Is the Russian bomber better because it has existed for over half a century? Probably not. But the Tupolov bomber sure did save money for the Russian tax payer. But if the Russians needed to use their current bombers in anger, would they be combat effective and sustainable as a weapons platform? Not a chance.

So a lot of people complain about these systems as being too costly, ineffectual, or unneeded for current threats. The reality is that maintaining the superior tactical and strategic advantage is a lot cheaper than showing up with a weapons system that isn't up to the circumstances of the combat it finds itself deployed against.

Leia Mais…