|
|
|
#1
03-14-2010, 11:22 PM
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
State Guards and Civil Defense
(resurrected from the archive - kato13)
davidns84 State Guards and Civil Defense -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Something that GDW never touched on in T2K and I'm sure most people do not know, is that 25 states in the US actually maintain their own active State Guard (militia) forces, including naval and air force units. In the lead up to WWIII, there would be increased concerns in state capitols about civil defense, social stability/unrest, and the continued functioning of government (especially in the if their was invasion or the war went nuclear), highlighted further by the activation and deployment of National Guard units by the Federal government (now out of state control). Thus, it is likely that State Guards would see increased funding, more training, new equipment, and things like higher pay and better benefits to attract recruits. And if it came down to a draft for the Armed Forces, some may sign up for the State Guard to stay at home, as they "may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces" (see above link). States may also require state police, firefighters, and/or emergency workers to undergo training as reserves, while other states may use unactivated NG units, still under the command of their respective governors, to conduct training for the State Guard. In some cases, they may use units that have been through the US Army's Airborne or Ranger schools to establish state training schools, or even special forces training schools, in the case of states which have elements of the 19th (Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Ohio, Rhode Island, Colorado, and California) or 20th (Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, North Carolina, Illinois, Kentucky and Pennsylvania) Special Forces Group National Guard. What are the implications? Well, in the case of Soviet invasion, their plans are not likely to take into State Guard forces into account, considering they're they're very low profile (most of the public don't know they exist). It isn't that they couldn't obtain intelligence, it is that they wouldn't think to. Second, in the case of a nuclear exchange, bases of operation for State Guard forces, I would argue, are more likely to survive, based upon that same low profile and the fact that they operate separately from US Armed Forces. Third, with State Guard forces intact (men and equipment), civil order may be restored surprisingly quickly, given the circumstances. davidns84 ************ General Pain Excellent info and quite inspiring. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote:
Even that I think that russian intelligence would read these forums and the cats out of the bag he he I can see loads of various scenarios with State guard "State guard controlled areas" "State guard gone rogue" "State guard on the rampage" "State guard disolved" etc etc etc loads of funny scenarios players could stumble upon. Even a rather large battle could be happening with State guard on one side and the Army on the other .... I reckon HEADQUARTERS would enjoy this kind of thing ************ davidns84 Quote:
Interesting and fun, certainly, though I would lump it in with the rather dubious civgov/milgov sub-plot in the GDW campaign modules. It's something to add drama, but less than likely if you're sticking to "real life." I favor more realism myself (though not at the cost of a good story). I could see them used in an attempted secessionist movement, with State Guard on either side, fighting it out. But for the most part, it means rebuilding is that much easier, as the feds aren't going to have the resources to dispense and the state governments are closer to the emergencies anyway. I would probably make domestic terrorism and general uprisings/anti-gov't movements the two big post-war problems. A few white supremacists here, a few "militia" kooks over there, and a high profile riot or two. Throw in gangs-turned-marauders and some wannabe warlords and it gets plenty interesting. davidns84 ************ General Pain Quote:
The situation as I remeber it in our campaign si as follows: West-coas: The PACGOV faction (california,oregon,nevada,washington parts of idahoe) South US: texas to florida - with some exeptions (anarchy/warlords) MILGOV controlled East-coast : CIVGOV Central US is divided into Mormon controlled areas, Native indian areas, Nazi controlled areas and anarchy Hawaii - 6 or 6 various factions Alaska - Civgov,Pacgov & Rusiian factions quite varied actually General Pain ************ davidns84 Quote:
My image of the aftermath is that, by and large, the state and federal governments survive in some functional form, but with severely diminished resources, so that their authority can't extend much outside of major population centers without dangerously stretching themselves. Bad things would, of course, be occurring and many people would be left to their own devices, as well smaller communities. It would be at that geographic and demographic periphery, outside the centers of population and power, that groups would start springing up to nibble at the edges where the now shortened arms of the law couldn't reach them. It then becomes a matter of not stamping out large fires, but many small ones. That is where PCs, if they are active military and stateside, come in. They'll be sent in as an asymmetric force to conduct insurgency and force multiplication to disrupt outlaw groups. Or at least that is how I would run it. I suppose, on the whole, it is a bit more optimistic than GDW's scenario as, but to each his own. Your ideas would certainly be fun as well. davidns84 ************ Radar0313 I like it when there are several 'official' parties that claim authority. Because to me in the collapse of society as we know it and in the chaos that insues, I feel their would be great division amoung the governments as well as the people. I remember playing in a game way back when, that the Referee felt that a simple MILGOV / CIVGOV split was just to tidey and neat. He had factions broken down within each. Where multiple people claimed that they were the rightful President. And where several Generals, some self-made, claimed their military authority was the 'correct' one. It was chaotic and much like what General Pain had mentioned but at the same time it was like David's comment where even though an area was technically under the control of Mr or General X, it was only within the major population centers and along major travel routes to other communities that provided valuable assets to the rebuilding of the major centers. I've seen player character groups that return to the states split into three loyalties; working for the MILGOV or CIVGOV, but also seen one group go mercenary. The group of five characters got back to the US and Referee said that since the governement owed them a hell-u-vah lotta back pay that they could keep their weapons and equipment, minus vehicles, and would be honorably discharged. And the entire group jumped on the opportunity and marched off into as their own self formed mercenary clan. They eventually headed to Texas to fight a guerilla war against enemies of a couple of communties in those fringes David talked about. Sorry, started getting carried away. I return you to your regularly scheduled nuclear aftermath. Radar0313 ************ Webstral State Guards are a great resource, albeit a limited one. In the real world, state guards are fairly limited beasts. Virginia has a state guard, and its maximum intended manpower is a little over 1000. This is very useful indeed, but it’s hardly a division. However, world events being what they are in 1995, I would expect a surge in state guard recruiting, resourcing, and enlistment across the country. A conventional war scare will get the states thinking about what they will do for armed forces when and if the National Guard is called up. A nuclear war scare will get the states thinking about maximizing their civil defense readiness. In either case, a robust state guard will be a great asset. It should be borne in mind, however, that state guards are light infantry serving in the MP role with minimal heavy equipment. That fact isn’t likely to change, even with the Sino-Soviet War raging. State guards receive no federal funding, although it is very conceivable that the federal government would donate equipment. A few thousand M16A1s, commo gear, uniforms, and load bearing equipment would go a long way for state guards, even if direct funding weren’t possible. Quite naturally, the state guards are going to be used to safeguard National Guard armories and other critical locations like the state headquarters. As the state headquarters tends to be located in the same city as the state house, state guards will tend to ensure that the state government remains viable long after it might otherwise have vanished. This is one reason why I see Vermont having a much greater longevity than GDW does in “Howling Wilderness”. By the same token, in “Thunder Empire” I have the Arizona government moving from Phoenix to Flagstaff essentially on the backs of state guard units (plus USAF and Army personnel from Luke AFB). The New Mexico government is hanging on in Sante Fe based on the remnants of the state guard, now mounted on horseback. Ft. Huachuca absorbs a fair number of Arizona State Guard (AZSTAG) personnel in 1998 despite the fact that state guards are supposed to be separate from federal forces. Like virtually every major command in 1998, Huachuca consolidates everyone in uniform into a single fighting force. This includes all Regular Army, Army National Guard, Army Reserve, USAF, Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve, USMC, USMC-R, USN, USN-R, USCG, USCG-R, state and municipal police, sheriff’s departments, and state guards in the area. As MilGov seems to be running the show in the Sacramento-East SF Bay corridor, I wonder if the California Military Reserve hasn’t been absorbed by the units in the area. Perhaps only the units around the state capitol have been absorbed, while elsewhere the state guard maintains its own cantonments. Camp Roberts might be one such cantonment, along with Camp San Luis Obispo. Webstral ************ davidns84 Quote:
Historically, societies don't experience a total collapse all at once. They're a bit like a building; the structure gradually compromised, the foundation eroded, and bit by bit experiences a progressive failure. The issue is whether or not you can repair the damage fast enough to save the structure. Quote:
The simple questions are how? and why? People don't sever their loyalties in such fashion without great reason to do so. "Chaos" may be a descriptor for a general state of things, but it doesn't provide reason or motive. I myself don't see any particular reason for "great divisions." Squabbles, there will be plenty, but everybody is moving toward the same goal and, nominally at least, are still members of the same society. Quote:
On the Civgov/Milgov split, I have several reasons against it. 1. Continuity of Government/Continuity of Operations, which has been discussed several times before on this board. But to quote from the Wikipedia article: These measures included construction of underground facilities such as "Mount Weather," a hollowed-out putatively nuclear-proof mountain in western Virginia (mailing address: Berryville, Virginia). The public can now tour one such facility, intended to house the entire U.S. Congress, on the grounds of the Greenbrier Resort in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia. Other provisions of the plans included executive orders that designated certain government officials to assume Cabinet and other Executive Branch positions and form a shadow government if the primary office holders were killed in a nuclear exchange. There has been a formal line of succession to the presidency since 1792 (currently to be found in the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, (3 U.S.C. § 19). This runs from the Vice President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, President pro tempore of the Senate, and then through the Cabinet Secretaries in a sequence specified by Congress. Survivability and redundancy plans have been in place since WWII and refined to a great degree since then. At the very least I see functional and legally sustainable remnants of the Federal government surviving a nuclear exchange. 2. Civilian leadership of the military and the idea of the "citizen soldier" are virtually hardwired into the American mind and deeply embedded in its legal and political framework. Any military officer seeking to seize control from civilian authorities significantly compromises the basis of their own authority and, among other things, risks public backlash and refusal with in their own command, to the point that their subordinates may place them under arrest. 3. The mutual goal of rebuilding and the lack of resources to make a fight of it. Any local or regional authority, civ or mil, is johnny-on-the-spot and more worried about what's happening in their backyard than fights over who's in charge. Thus, cooperation is more likely than competition. Than isn't to say there aren't go to be squabbles, especially with communication breakdowns while you're trying to figure out who you report to. Further, I could see a person responsible for a particular area, using their limited means as best they can, giving a hardy "screw you" to some bureaucrat ordering them to send precious resources up the chain. That, however, falls short of an outright denial of authority. As to intra-factional splits, I see it being more likely for the civilian side. The military, while by no means an apolitical organization, is more focused on a specific job and has less latitude in the types of politicking that can be attempted. Further, it is a stringent hierarchy bound by strict standards of protocol and law, filled with men and women who have taken oaths and are serious about the duties they commit to. Of course they will be abuses, abandonments, and even criminal acts committed in the aftermath, no doubt, but if the military remains in any recognizable form, then I don't such things will be the exception, not the rule. Such projections of post-war activity are shaped, I think, by two cultural experiences. The first is much of what we've seen happen in third world countries, which seem to be a perpetual state of instability. While such observations have usefulness, it should be remembered that there are a host of cultural and social factors which set them apart. Taking Africa as an example, many of the nations facing instability and low level wars never had time in the post-colonial era for their social and political institutions to take root and mature. Rather, millenia-long tribal allegiances, rampant corruption, criminal activity, and cultures generally unconducive to we would call civil society have all conspired to continually degrade any progress toward stable rule-of-law societies. I think, possible satire aside, America and the first world (and much of the developing world) differs on many of those points. The second factor in a post-Vietnam/post-Nixon perception of the government and military that still moderately colors popular culture (though less so after 9/11), fueled by a rash of movies in in the 70s and 80s--Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, Platoon, Rambo, etc.--that have inspired an undeserved attitude of cynicism those institutions. It's undeniable, of course, that corruption and incompetence exist, but it is a bit overblown. On this count, I have no great love of Oliver Stone. The 1st edition T2K was written right in the middle of that movie spate and it simply drips with similar atmosphere (though not so cynical). I always loved the simple pencil drawings they had in the modules, which reverberate with the theme. Quote:
Holding symbolic centers of power is always vital, in addition to securing those centers of industry and trade which will be the backbone of a local economy. However, with centers of industry either destroyed or unsustainable by a loss of public services, rural farming, mining, and industry towns will also become vital. Their moderate industry, while far outstripped in terms of capacity, are more flexible in the varieties of products they can produce. That is where trade comes in. Economic connections will be the first steps toward recovery. And without military assistance, it is going to be the gun-toting public (40-50% of the American population) that hunts down marauders and sets up armed convoys. The entire country will become a frontier. Law will still exist, though with a little more "flexibility" and rough justice. Quote:
Actually, I could see widespread growth of the private military industry, largely in support of local and county governments who are having trouble keeping order. Bodyguard work, training, consultation, convoy protection, etc. There a lot of it going on in Iraq and they fulfill a legitimate need. Quote:
These are great issues for discussion, so no apologies. Quote:
Take into account that any state maintaining a force will expand its size, even by a large margin. I expect populous states like California, New York, and Texas will may expand them to a full corps, but not much larger than that. Quote:
The type of off-the-shelf gear being produced, even in the middle 90s, was fairly impressive. What you can't buy off the shelf could be contracted out to local industry. A state like California, which has the fifth largest economy in the world and more high-tech industry than you can shake a stick at, is well equipped to produce sophisticated equipment. I would expect them to add a few light armor companies--APCs, LAVs, light tanks (perhaps import something like the FV101 Scorpion from the UK or one of the numerous variants of the Centurion)--and helicopter units for additional mobility. But it is also more reason to establish schools for training their own special operations forces, to not only overcome that weakness, but also to take advantage of its strength, which is the ability to react faster and more unconventionally than a lumbering military machine. Quote:
As MilGov seems to be running the show in the Sacramento-East SF Bay corridor, I wonder if the California Military Reserve hasn’t been absorbed by the units in the area. Perhaps only the units around the state capitol have been absorbed, while elsewhere the state guard maintains its own cantonments. Camp Roberts might be one such cantonment, along with Camp San Luis Obispo. From the side of the state government, all they have to do is order their forces to follow the orders of the military. You're adhering to the letter of the law at that point, which is about as much as you can do. Although, any high level command will eventually cease trying to centralize everything and simply issue general orders, allowing local forces flexibility in executing the details. Not only would it be a nightmare in trying to centralize everything, but the organizational backup as you try and keep track of what everyone's doing in an ever changing landscape would cause everything to ground to a halt. davidns84 ************ Radar0313 To each there own, cause for every point you make there are counter points and examples to the contrary. Noones view is any more correct than another. I don't go into that much details on the why in my games, some Ref's do and that is their perogative. If it seems reasonable I go with it as a Ref, and as a player I never place any logic to it and just go with what the Ref's concept of things is because he has some reasoning behind it to some degree and my character just reacts to it. Radar0313 ************ Webstral In a very real sense, the MilGov/CivGov split happened because of the law. As has been mentioned, there is a clear chain of command. Unfortunately, everybody in the chain died before a new chain could be be assembled. Without a clear successor, MilGov stepped in. I believe the actions of the Joint Chiefs to be entirely in keeping with the conduct of the military. Someone has to be in charge. In the absence of a legitimate civilian government, the military should step in. A necessary proviso is that the military runs the show until proper elections can be held. I don't think in the year 2001 the United States is ready for proper elections. The Rump Congress is a farce. The Joint Chiefs would be irresponsible to hand over power to it. When exactly the country will be ready for general elections is an interesting question. The answer, I suppose, depends a great deal on what you believe in happening in the US in late 2000 and early 2001. I'm more of a "Postman" sort of post-apocalypse kind of guy than a "Road Warrior" kind of guy. Given this, I prefer to imagine things as generally improving, provided the right kinds of leaders can step forward and deal with the circumstances of 2001. This is why I wrote my Operation Manifest Destiny material, in which MilGov uses the resource of airships to help tie together the otherwise isolated MilGov cantonments throughout the country. Airships may not be able to move large quantities of food or fuel, but they can enable specialized personnel and equipment to be moved where they are needed most. I digress. I do believe that in due course MilGov will sponsor elections in the various MilGov cantonments and that a new and separate Congress will be convened in Colorado Springs, transported by airship. MilGov and CivGov won't so much patch up their differences as CivGov will be obliged to join MilGov or be overtaken by events. Regarding state guards, populous states like California, New York, and Texas already have state guards. The problem they will face in expanding their guards is time and resources. Who is going to pay for a corps-sized entity not serving the federal government? Who is going to train these 35,000 people per big state? Who is going to equip them? M16 acquisition alone would cost $35 million (at $1,000/head). These problems can be addressed with sufficient time and money. Is that time and money going to be available in 1996 and 1997? The State Military Reserve of CA struggles to make ends meet with a few hundred volunteers. The idea of adding any significant number of armored fighting vehicles to SMR between 1995 and 1997 stretches credulity. I can see adding a few AFV to the SMR during this time, but not dozens. Remember that there is a bottomless pit of demand from 8/95 onward. Again, the issue is not what can be made but how to pay for it. There is a reason the National Guard gets the leftovers of the Regular Army. Sans federal funding, the state guards will be standing in line after the National Guard. Webstral ************ davidns84 Quote:
Entirely plausible, given that set of circumstances. Although, at that point, I'm not sure there would be enough of a civilian bureaucracy left to even make up a CivGov. Quote:
Agreed. My main contentions were (1) that someone in the line of succession was likely to survive and (2) the military wouldn't strong arm the remaining civilian authorities as if it were a schoolyard bully, which is different than stepping in when there is a vacuum of power. When T2K was written, much of what is now known of the CoG plan was still very secret, so GDW wrote the entire CivGov/MilGov scenario with what they had. We now know that the contingencies in place probably would have provided a bit more survivability than they originally assumed. The other issue is that, barring extreme circumstances, a CivGov/MilGov conflict would probably not result in a large shooting war. A lot of saber rattling, particularly from the CivGov side, but I would think that forces on both sides would think twice about shooting other Americans when they just scored a Pyhrric victory over the Soviets. That doesn't exclude some flare ups or the possibility that it could all go south, but I tend toward the conservative side. Quote:
Same here. Quote:
Or the state governments call a constitutional convention and lay down provisions for new elections that way. We shouldn't forget that many state governments have survived and still have authority of their own. I think the MilGov would be more focused more on external and nationally collective issues, while state governments rallied and organized to begin rebuilding with in their own sphere of authority. Quote:
A corps is 10,000 - 15,000. Texas, as of right now, maintains a force of "six Civil Affairs Regiments [a regiment being 2,000-3,000 troops], two Air Wings, a Medical Reserve Corps, and a Maritime Regiment." There are two primary sources of potential NCOs and COs to train and lead. The first are going to be the existing Army NG units that haven't been activated (they're never activate them all at once and won't be activated in large portions at the time states start increasing their SG numbers. The second are military veterans, of whom there will be sizable numbers in states numbering several million people (CA has 25,000,000 people, for example). Now, many of those veterans will re-enlist with the Army, but not all of them. Further, if states begin offering competitive pay and good benefits, some may opt to enlist in the SG, particularly to stay close to their families. Quote:
That's assuming a particular timeline. A significantly revised v2.2 timeline I have in my head would give them about three to four years. Quote:
Not having to build them saves quite a bit of time, but you still have to negotiate for purchase, ship them, and train with them, though a motivated seller might complete the transaction in a few months. However, if you look at the deployment of MPVs to replace HMMWVs in Iraq with in the last couple of years, you'll see that the Army and Marines have purchased (or rather, ordered manufacture of) and deployed such hundreds of vehicles into the field on a similar timetable. And now they are gearing up for the deployment of thousands. I'm only talking dozens Quote:
The NG is beholden to the federal budget, with the states supplying something like five percent of their funding. I live in Minnesota, it has a population of about four million, and its annual budget several billion. I imagine the budgets of the more populous states to be quite a bit bigger. Now, if you cut all the pork barrel spending (quite a chunk in any gov't budget), trim excess social welfare programs (they're always floating around), and give the inefficient bureaucracy a swift kick in the butt (a cliché because it's true) then you could probably free up a few hundred million. Off-the-shelf gear is going to save you a bit. Buying up ubiquitous military surplus ammo saves you some more. And on and on you could go with the money saving options, but point is, I think it's doable. davidns84 ************ Webstral In the US, a division is at least 10,000. Realistically, a division is more like 12,000-14,000. A corps is anywhere from two to four divisions, plus separate brigades and support troops. During the Cold War, the US maintained two small corps in the FRG. Each corps had two divisions and an armored cavalry regiment, plus support troops. Thirty-five thousand is a low-ball figure for a corps. It’s possible, of course, for state officials to give whatever name they want to their organization. The Massachusetts Military Reserve, for instance, had fewer than one hundred people organized into three brigades. Obviously, calling something a brigade doesn’t make that organization capable of executing brigade-level missions. The Texas State Guard has a very high level of participation; even so, I wonder whether the 2,000 slots per regiment are full or largely spaces on paper. I can’t say that I agree with your sanguine interpretation of how many trainers are going to be available for state guards. During the 1995-1996 timeframe, the National Guard is going to be doing its best to train National Guard people. Clearly, some state guard folks are going to be able to attend National Guard school house and field training. “Some” isn’t going to be thousands over the course of a year. The National Guard units of the country have enough trouble training their own personnel, much less taking on a significant number of state-only people. Active duty people—whether Regular Army, National Guard, or State Guard—need to be paid and receive benefits. Bear in mind that two-thirds of the gigantic Pentagon budget is for personnel (pay, benefits, etc). A few former NCOs might volunteer to come back to train new state guardsmen. To get them in any numbers—like the numbers required to build a state guard to 10,000 people—is going to require funding. “Not having to build them saves quite a bit of time, but you still have to negotiate for purchase, ship them, and train with them, though a motivated seller might complete the transaction in a few months. However, if you look at the deployment of MPVs to replace HMMWVs in Iraq with in the last couple of years, you'll see that the Army and Marines have purchased (or rather, ordered manufacture of) and deployed such hundreds of vehicles into the field on a similar timetable. And now they are gearing up for the deployment of thousands. I'm only talking dozens.” At the risk of beating a dead horse, the money issue continues to be a huge obstacle. The Army and the Marines have the money to spend on such things. Even a state like California, with its seemingly immense budget, nevertheless faces a real funding squeeze. Could money be made available with the elimination of, or at least reduction in, corruption, misspending, and other such drains on the public coffers? Absolutely. Could the priorities of the state be rearranged significantly? No question. The issue at hand is whether this will happen sufficiently for a populous state like California to increase its state guard from a few hundred volunteers to ten or fifteen thousand and equip them with all the paraphernalia required by a light motorized force. I’m dubious. Heck, OIF demonstrated that the 35 million people of California couldn’t even fill the 14,000-man 40th Infantry Division. Whole units have been demobilized during the last year so that the battalions the CANG puts in the field are full with warm bodies, not just paper bodies. The CANG gets paid for its time on the clock. The SMR doesn’t, unless it is mobilized by Sacramento. I’ll grant, though, that Texas may be a different story. At any rate, when we discuss budgetary reform we need to have a look at cause-and-effect. What exactly is changing so dramatically in the state houses during 1995 and early 1996 that we can expect several hundred million to be freed up for equipping state guard units? I think we can all agree that trimming the pork is both needed and laudable. But why do we imagine it happens just when state guards need the money? It’s too deus ex machine for me—at least through late 1996. I can see the state guards getting a kick-start prior to the West German invasion of the DDR. However, a kick start for a force of 1,000 is a boost to 2,000. After October 1996, a lot of new possibilities open up. Now I can see state legislatures ponying up for major increases in equipment. However, at this point the training facilities of the country are going to be packed with draftees heading overseas. The Army Reserve divisions are going to have their hands full, as are the National Guard trainers. By the same token, the production of military major end items everywhere throughout the country is likely to be spoken for by the federal government and overseas customers. Exceptions can be made (I am notorious for this), but they need to be explained. Webstral ************ MW Turnage A possibly interesting side note: back in the early 90s there was a great deal of interest on the part of DoD and several Congressmen (Sam Nunn IIRC) in organizing various state volunteer militias and 'home guard' organizations (such as the Texas State Militia) and giving them federal approval, backing and training. The idea would be to use them to supplement the National Guard to give a ready reserve of personnel for disaster relief that would be available even in the midst of a general mobilization. The plans were essentially a done-deal, to the extent of uniform designs already being solicited (gray IIRC). An acquaintance of mine was part of the group inking the legislation that was going to create the organization...and the Oklahoma City bombing happened less than a week before it was going to be introduced. Needless to say this killed the idea of Federal approval of anything remotely resembling the word 'militia' dead. A damned shame, because the worst-case scenario they were intended for is exactly the one being faced by the military and the states right now.... Now, obviously the same legislation never happened (for whatever reason) in the T2K timeline...or maybe it was passed but the infrastructure wasn't in place by the time the nukes fell. Interesting to consider the possibilities, though. MW Turnage ************ chico20854 To keep things simple (and because there was a line of thunderstorms rolling through here this evening) I've thrown my ideas about the state guards together in the attached document. Fire away! Attached Files Thoughts on the SGUS.doc (32.5 KB, 28 views) chico20854 ************ thefusilier Most of you all probably already know this, but there are 1 or 2 Challenge articles which focus quite a bit on state guards... Ohio being one. There's an orbat as well. Moot point. thefusilier ************ Webstral Chico, Great work! I think you have done a good job of showing the state guards in a fashion fitting with Twilight: 2000. Also, I'm glad you bring up the subject of dependents. The fate of dependents would be a huge issue for all parties concerned. This issue would rear its ugly head everywhere in the days leading up the the TDM and certainly in the aftermath. During the Alarm (my name for the panic following the initiation of nuclear weapons use in July, 1997), everyone in the US receives a rude lesson in what awaits. This is an opportunity for some to make some provisions for families. Nowhere will these preparations be adequate. However, every little bit will help. In this much, units taking over active duty posts (and bases) have a significant advantage. A stock of housing already exists, though this will soon become quite crowded. Nevertheless, having the families in one location will go far towards securing the loyalty and attentions of the guardsmen. Good stuff! Fusilier, I'd love to see anything you can post. Webstral ************ davidns84 Sorry I didn't respond quickly. I haven't read chico's work yet, so I am just going to respond to Webstral's post right now. Quote:
There I was getting my terminology mixed up. What is it? Army - Corps - Division - Regiment - Battalion - Company - Platoon - Squad - Fireteam? Well, whatever. 10,000 - 15,000 is about the outer limit one could hope for. Quote:
True, but that "some" only have to be NCOs, who return to their own units to act as Drill Sergeants or training cadre for the new recruits. Officers in need of additional training could be funneled into ROTC programs at various state colleges. Retired officers to old to be called back into service could be hired on to form training programs. Quote:
True. Obviously, it is far more of a budgetary issue than equipment. Nonetheless, how many thousands are already employed at state agencies? Making a few personnel cutbacks in each agency across the board should create an aggregate balance. Quote:
Then we're talking about political will more than finances, since the money is obviously there, there just needs to be motivation to find it. In the case of Texas, that isn't much of a stretch. A state like West Virginia is an even better example, with about a third of its population being military veterans or active duty. No doubt they have the manpower available, though not necessarily the finances to raise a force larger than two or three thousand. Quote:
In the timeline I'm laying down, the Soviet Union is laying down plans to invade North America to tie up US forces as they plan to make a push into Europe. It is conceivable that the Federal government receives intelligence about these plans without details and then quietly informs state governments of the threat. Quote:
The Federal government already has its own usual suppliers who'll cover the majority of their needs, while subcontracting some parts to smaller firms in order to speed up production. Many of those same smaller firms will also be busy manufacturing orders for smaller pieces of equipment. In the middle of all of that, the states have three options. First, purchase what is already on the open market. There's plenty of civilian gear that will do the same job. Second, they can contract out to smaller "mom and pop" local firms who wouldn't be in the loop for larger federal contracts. Third, production can also be contracted out to non-traditional firms capable of retooling for production. davidns84 ************ Stilleto69 Hi guys, I was just reading the excellent works presented here. I have just one question, does it matter what timeline you're using when taking the budgetary requirements of State Guard/Home Guard units into concederation. I mean if you use the v.1 timeline-the Cold War never ended, therefore I could see some hardcore Right-wing politicians lobbying for more spending, by feeding on everyone's fears of the Soviet Bear, of course at first they'll be seen as fear-mongers, but after 8/95, everything changes. Just my .05 worth. Stilleto69 ************ davidns84 The simple answer is that it's a matter of politics. The earlier and clearer the warning, the more basis a pro-build-up politician has for his case. In my evolving timeline, the Soviet Union moves into Iraq upon "invitation" by Saddam, giving him aid in exchange for his oil, and funneling billions into Soviet coffers, which allows them to expand defense spending while easing up on the civilian economy. This puts the US, which still has forces in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, on a far more defensive posture. The US cuts a deal with the now-autonomous Kurdish region of Iraq to station troops, on now you have a Middle Eastern version of East and West Germany, all of this occurring in '92-'93. davidns84 ************ thefusilier Quote:
I don't know. There isn't an endless pit of money and resources. Especially once the fighting breaks out, the consumption will overtake whats available and produced. Prior to that, the Army, Navy, AF, and Marines will all be doing what they can to get a bigger slice of the pie in their own buildup. How can state guards compete with that? thefusilier ************ Headquarters yep -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote:
I reckon HEADQUARTERS would enjoy this kind of thing Loved it.Wow - half of the states out there have their own military that answers to the GOVERNOR and not the president ( although I believe there is presedence for the state guard to be drafted federally - The New York Guard during the civil war) Alot of good material for campaigning there .. Headquarters ************ Headquarters compelling historical motives -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote:
I think hunger is a pretty compelling historical motive.When the major population centers start to starve they will start collecting food from the rural areas either through cooperation but certainly also through coercion and this in turn leads to organized resistance that eventually can take over the area they are defending and acts a a defacto political entity or they are subjugated by ethe GOV and rooted out. A secession or civil war is not declared with flowering language or formal acts of law-it just simmers when diferent motivated groups interact and may/may not boil over and crystalize in factions vying for power.In Twilight that means control over resources like petroleum products,industry or food.Imagine a federal goverment ordering a state to send half of its food stockpiles to the federals for "redistrubution".Imagine there is a war on and a famine could become a reality. Someone might disobey.In an attempt to punish the disobidients shots are fired when they will not yield peacefully.Both sides escalate... Headquarters Last edited by kato13; 03-15-2010 at 03:25 PM. Reason: added quotes 
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Threaded Mode