4 ms·

the whole secession thing blows me away. I live in Texas and had a couple friends who were on that bandwagon. I asked them had they thought about going toe to

the whole secession thing blows me away. I live in Texas and had a couple friends who were on that bandwagon. I asked them had they thought about going toe to toe with the US Marines while bombers are over Austin and drones over everywhere else. All i got back was silence. The union will be preserved at any cost, there's precedent for that. No state will secede without defeating the US military first.

lgbrandon 4y ago
just look to Vietnam. The military can occupy but it gets expensive. To win a true war you have to keep the local population happy and bombing them Won't achieve that. Plus you have to think the people in the military are going to be ok bombing local populations and possibly areas they have family. It isn't so cut and dry. I think a break could happen. We are at the end of this empire and the fall is going to be bad.
- taylodl 4y ago
  You must not be American otherwise you'd know the answer to the (rhetorical?) questions. The American Civil War showed us the atrocities each side was willing to commit. It was warfare at a level the rest of the world wouldn't experience for decades to come. And unlike the first Civil War, the United States didn't have the means to destroy the rest of the world should their weapons fall into the wrong hands. The world has an interest to concern itself and intercede. When you say the end of the empire is going to be bad, that's not the half of it - it's almost unthinkably bad.
  - antonymy 4y ago
    The Civil War saw a US Army General, Robert E. Lee, defect to a cause he did not truly believe in, because he refused to fight against his home state. You might also want to consider how many veterans there are in the USA, that is, people with military service experience now living as civilians. Last census poll put that number at over 18 million, across all branches of service. Some might re-enlist to fight for the government, but you wouldn't even need 10% of them to go rebel to have a multi-million man rebel force with military experience and contacts within every branch to possible sympathizers. Absolute nightmare.
  - mrep 4y ago
    Not OP but am a born and raised American. That civil war that was a freaking 160 years ago! In what aspect would a civil war today be any similar to that one?
    - taylodl 4y ago
      I was addressing our willingness to commit atrocities against one another. I don't see anything making me think that willingness has abated any in the past 160 years.
_AdAstra_ 4y ago
Does not seem to be a democratic way of handling secession. Makes me wonder why Hong Kong should be free in the view of most westeners, but not Texas...
- chasd00 4y ago
- cyberge99 4y ago
  Because China signed a 50 year pact saying as much.
  - trasz 4y ago
    Nope - the pact introduced the "one country, two systems", and that is still in place. Also HK citizens themselves aren't exactly opposed to the new situation: https://research.hktdc.com/en/article/NTY0NDU0NDI3 https://research.hktdc.com/en/article/NTY0NDU0NDI3.
snapetom 4y ago
Except the South, presumably Texas sympathizers, are way over represented in the military. The next largest region of over-representation are your flyover states, which political lean red. https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/costs/social/Troop%20Numbers%20By%20State_Costs%20of%20War_FINAL.pdf https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/costs/soc... You assumption that Texas would have to go toe to toe with the US Marines is a big assumption when many Marines are from Texas or would be politically sympathetic. If it came to it, the US Military would likely face a large breakdown and crisis within itself.
- chasd00 4y ago
  even if they were politically sympathetic they would have to abandon their oath to the constitution and turn and fight the rest of the Marines. Also, there's a lot more to the party than just Marines. I doubt there would be as much hesitation by drone operators sitting in office buildings firing on any armed citizen in any city in Texas. Let alone AI feeding targets of opportunity to a queue where operators just click the "approve" button... I just don't think the secession people have thought about the level of violence required to actually secede. And even then what happens next? A blockade and sanctions then the entire state slowly starves to death or submission. Maybe Texas could form an alliance with Mexico.. ok now the United States declares war on Mexico. I don't think Mexico would want that. the whole secession story just falls apart after 10 minutes of thought.
  - threatofrain 4y ago
    The Constitution is strong because of the robustness of the structure it specifies via checks and balances, not because people pledge an oath. I also don't think it's obvious that the US would go to war to preserve the union.
    - chasd00 4y ago
      What i meant by "oath to the constitution" is the US military doesn't pledge allegiance to an administration or ideology or region. Its only purpose is to uphold the constitution of the United States of America. That's why the military operates the same no matter which political party is in power. At the end of the day, its only purpose is to defend the constitution. If the US didn't goto war to preserve the union then the US, as defined the US constitution, ceases to exist. There is no provision in the constitution laying out the right (or even the method) for secession.
random-human 4y ago
Having grown up in TX and having gone through the required Texas propaganda (only state flag allowed to fly at same height as US flag etc) history courses in school, I can understand the fantasy of a by-gone era. A few people really take it to heart though. Texas has a bit of a unique history compared to other states, it was it's own country at one point and they made sure that we learned it, even in US history courses. Part of what makes the idea realistic is that the state could support itself, if it had too. There are major air & sea ports/trade, energy, food, defense, medical, technology, research, etc. While it seceded from the union, it really didnt do much in the civil war - but the most telling is that it still went with being a part of other states instead of becoming a Republic again. The idea of being an independent country is more of having this mental place to escape too when things are not going their (currently republican) way. The 180 the state did from its heighten Independents/secession rhetoric during Obama to going full-on Trumpism kowtowing is dizzying.
Supermancho 4y ago
While I think the idea of secession is ludicrous (who would give up the free services that the Federal govt hands over, especially after it gives the state oversight?), the idea that Bombers and drones and soldiers stave off a secession is pathetic. You can't aim a gun at someone to changing their beliefs, much less kill your way toward that goal. What you will do is create more and more costly asynchronous warfare, as we have seen with people in other nations that our military has tried to subdue (ie Hearts and Minds). Modern communication has created and maintained rebel organizations over great distances with little investment and minimal effort. What's worse is modern warfare usually empowers the targets of that military effort. eg Running some tanks over to Texas is basically agreeing to destroy those tanks when they are inevitably captured or left behind, because it's too vulnerable and expensive to bring them back from the front lines (which would be everywhere), as the Russians have learned.
- weeblewobble 4y ago
  Not trying to be glib but this literally already happened. The Southern states seceded (with a very similar mindset to those who want to secede today) and the federal government physically dominated them with guns. Obviously a lot has changed since 1861 but it seems odd to act like it's totally inconceivable
  - Supermancho 4y ago
    > The Southern states seceded (with a very similar mindset to those who want to secede today) The incentive and reasoning is a lot weaker than in the 1800s, so I wouldn't say similar. Now it's more of a nostalgic fantasy and it's known that the sentiment endures. > Obviously a lot has changed since 1861 That's the point.
jrs235 4y ago
Prior to the 17th amendment, the way to "dissolve", neuter, or do away with the Union was for state legislatures to stop electing Senators. Once enough states stopped electing and sending Senators then a quorum would cease to exist and nothing (lack of bills and budgets) would get done grinding everything to a halt...
yucky 4y ago
The entire weight of the US military couldn't defeat goatherders in caves with rusty AK-47's and they had 20 years to do it. I don't think you understand how insurgencies work.

lgbrandon 4y ago

just look to Vietnam. The military can occupy but it gets expensive. To win a true war you have to keep the local population happy and bombing them Won't achieve that. Plus you have to think the people in the military are going to be ok bombing local populations and possibly areas they have family. It isn't so cut and dry. I think a break could happen. We are at the end of this empire and the fall is going to be bad.

taylodl 4y ago
You must not be American otherwise you'd know the answer to the (rhetorical?) questions. The American Civil War showed us the atrocities each side was willing to commit. It was warfare at a level the rest of the world wouldn't experience for decades to come. And unlike the first Civil War, the United States didn't have the means to destroy the rest of the world should their weapons fall into the wrong hands. The world has an interest to concern itself and intercede. When you say the end of the empire is going to be bad, that's not the half of it - it's almost unthinkably bad.
- antonymy 4y ago
  The Civil War saw a US Army General, Robert E. Lee, defect to a cause he did not truly believe in, because he refused to fight against his home state. You might also want to consider how many veterans there are in the USA, that is, people with military service experience now living as civilians. Last census poll put that number at over 18 million, across all branches of service. Some might re-enlist to fight for the government, but you wouldn't even need 10% of them to go rebel to have a multi-million man rebel force with military experience and contacts within every branch to possible sympathizers. Absolute nightmare.
- mrep 4y ago
  Not OP but am a born and raised American. That civil war that was a freaking 160 years ago! In what aspect would a civil war today be any similar to that one?
  - taylodl 4y ago
    I was addressing our willingness to commit atrocities against one another. I don't see anything making me think that willingness has abated any in the past 160 years.

_AdAstra_ 4y ago

Does not seem to be a democratic way of handling secession. Makes me wonder why Hong Kong should be free in the view of most westeners, but not Texas...

chasd00 4y ago
cyberge99 4y ago
Because China signed a 50 year pact saying as much.
- trasz 4y ago
  Nope - the pact introduced the "one country, two systems", and that is still in place. Also HK citizens themselves aren't exactly opposed to the new situation: https://research.hktdc.com/en/article/NTY0NDU0NDI3 https://research.hktdc.com/en/article/NTY0NDU0NDI3.

snapetom 4y ago

Except the South, presumably Texas sympathizers, are way over represented in the military. The next largest region of over-representation are your flyover states, which political lean red. https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/costs/social/Troop%20Numbers%20By%20State_Costs%20of%20War_FINAL.pdf https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/costs/soc... You assumption that Texas would have to go toe to toe with the US Marines is a big assumption when many Marines are from Texas or would be politically sympathetic. If it came to it, the US Military would likely face a large breakdown and crisis within itself.

chasd00 4y ago
even if they were politically sympathetic they would have to abandon their oath to the constitution and turn and fight the rest of the Marines. Also, there's a lot more to the party than just Marines. I doubt there would be as much hesitation by drone operators sitting in office buildings firing on any armed citizen in any city in Texas. Let alone AI feeding targets of opportunity to a queue where operators just click the "approve" button... I just don't think the secession people have thought about the level of violence required to actually secede. And even then what happens next? A blockade and sanctions then the entire state slowly starves to death or submission. Maybe Texas could form an alliance with Mexico.. ok now the United States declares war on Mexico. I don't think Mexico would want that. the whole secession story just falls apart after 10 minutes of thought.
- threatofrain 4y ago
  The Constitution is strong because of the robustness of the structure it specifies via checks and balances, not because people pledge an oath. I also don't think it's obvious that the US would go to war to preserve the union.
  - chasd00 4y ago
    What i meant by "oath to the constitution" is the US military doesn't pledge allegiance to an administration or ideology or region. Its only purpose is to uphold the constitution of the United States of America. That's why the military operates the same no matter which political party is in power. At the end of the day, its only purpose is to defend the constitution. If the US didn't goto war to preserve the union then the US, as defined the US constitution, ceases to exist. There is no provision in the constitution laying out the right (or even the method) for secession.

random-human 4y ago

Having grown up in TX and having gone through the required Texas propaganda (only state flag allowed to fly at same height as US flag etc) history courses in school, I can understand the fantasy of a by-gone era. A few people really take it to heart though. Texas has a bit of a unique history compared to other states, it was it's own country at one point and they made sure that we learned it, even in US history courses. Part of what makes the idea realistic is that the state could support itself, if it had too. There are major air & sea ports/trade, energy, food, defense, medical, technology, research, etc. While it seceded from the union, it really didnt do much in the civil war - but the most telling is that it still went with being a part of other states instead of becoming a Republic again. The idea of being an independent country is more of having this mental place to escape too when things are not going their (currently republican) way. The 180 the state did from its heighten Independents/secession rhetoric during Obama to going full-on Trumpism kowtowing is dizzying.

Supermancho 4y ago

While I think the idea of secession is ludicrous (who would give up the free services that the Federal govt hands over, especially after it gives the state oversight?), the idea that Bombers and drones and soldiers stave off a secession is pathetic. You can't aim a gun at someone to changing their beliefs, much less kill your way toward that goal. What you will do is create more and more costly asynchronous warfare, as we have seen with people in other nations that our military has tried to subdue (ie Hearts and Minds). Modern communication has created and maintained rebel organizations over great distances with little investment and minimal effort. What's worse is modern warfare usually empowers the targets of that military effort. eg Running some tanks over to Texas is basically agreeing to destroy those tanks when they are inevitably captured or left behind, because it's too vulnerable and expensive to bring them back from the front lines (which would be everywhere), as the Russians have learned.

weeblewobble 4y ago
Not trying to be glib but this literally already happened. The Southern states seceded (with a very similar mindset to those who want to secede today) and the federal government physically dominated them with guns. Obviously a lot has changed since 1861 but it seems odd to act like it's totally inconceivable
- Supermancho 4y ago
  > The Southern states seceded (with a very similar mindset to those who want to secede today) The incentive and reasoning is a lot weaker than in the 1800s, so I wouldn't say similar. Now it's more of a nostalgic fantasy and it's known that the sentiment endures. > Obviously a lot has changed since 1861 That's the point.

jrs235 4y ago

Prior to the 17th amendment, the way to "dissolve", neuter, or do away with the Union was for state legislatures to stop electing Senators. Once enough states stopped electing and sending Senators then a quorum would cease to exist and nothing (lack of bills and budgets) would get done grinding everything to a halt...

yucky 4y ago

The entire weight of the US military couldn't defeat goatherders in caves with rusty AK-47's and they had 20 years to do it. I don't think you understand how insurgencies work.