RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-14-2010, 11:22 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,354
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default 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:
Originally Posted by davidns84
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. 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. If it comes 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 a 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 in 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.

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:
Originally Posted by General Pain
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

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:
Originally Posted by davidns84
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 out. But for the most part, it means rebuilding is that much easier, as the feds are 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.

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:
Originally Posted by General Pain
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
Indeed. I just don't think they provided compelling motive for such splits, given historical context, culture, and national sentiment. The scenario is mainly meant to serve the generally bleak atmosphere they created for T2K, not to necessarily be a realistic extrapolation.

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:
Originally Posted by 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 ensues...


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:
...I feel their would be great division among the governments as well as the people.


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:
I remember playing in a game way back when, that the Referee felt that a simple MILGOV/CIVGOV split was just to tidy 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.


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:
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.


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:
The group of five characters got back to the US and Referee said that since the government 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 guerrilla war against enemies of a couple of communities in those fringes David talked about.


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:
Sorry, started getting carried away. I return you to your regularly scheduled nuclear aftermath.


These are great issues for discussion, so no apologies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.




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:
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.

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:
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.



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:
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.

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:
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.

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:
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.


Same here.


Quote:
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.


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:
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?


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:
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?


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:
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.


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:
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.



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:
Originally Posted by 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.




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:
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.


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:
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.


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:
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.


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:
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.


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:
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.

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:
Originally Posted by davidns84
The simple answer is that it's a matter of politics.

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:
Originally Posted by General Pain
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



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:
Originally Posted by davidns84
Indeed. I just don't think they provided compelling motive for such splits, given historical context, culture, and national sentiment. The scenario is mainly meant to serve the generally bleak atmosphere they created for T2K, not to necessarily be a realistic extrapolation.

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.



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
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-14-2010, 11:23 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,354
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

************
davidns84

Quote:
Originally Posted by thefusilier
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?

Well, they don't drink at the federal trough. Whatever the various state guards receive is going to come out of state budgets. Now, how much the federal government collects in taxes can affect state tax income, but both the Reagan-era military expansion and the current wartime pace of the US military followed on the heels of tax cuts. That leaves the states with what they can supply for their own forces.

As far industrial capacity goes, the Fed. gov't isn't making a force from whole cloth. The majority of what they are going to war with they already have. Even with aggressive expansion, they're going to be looking for firms can produce things in large numbers (it's why Haliburton received a no-bid contract for going into Iraq; there wasn't anyone else to do the job). There are a legion of smaller local businesses which can produce what is needed, but with less capacity. They're perfect for fulfilling the needs of a smaller state force.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Headquarters
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...


Starvation as a primary cause is often responsible for rioting and mob violence, but civil war implies a sustained military conflict, which usually boiled down to ethic, political, or religious divisions. Starvation can be contributing factor or even THE trigger, but I can't think of a historical conflict where it was the primary cause (even Somalia). At least, not without a host of other factors surrounding it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Headquarters
...this in turn leads to organized resistance that eventually can take over the area they are defending and acts a a de facto political entity or they are subjugated by either GOV and rooted out.


But demand + supply usually = trade. Starvation, at this point, is going to be more breakdown of the supply chain than a lack of supply. The paranoid, of course, will want to hoard and strong arm to obtain supplies. Hopefully the government steps in, cracks a few heads together, and keeps such impulses under control so that cooler heads can prevail.


Quote:
A secession or civil war is not declared with flowering language or formal acts of law-


I can think of a few that were. The Jamestown Uprising, the English Civil War, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the American Civil War, the Bolshevik Uprising...


Quote:
it just simmers when different motivated groups interact and may/may not boil over and crystallize in factions vying for power.


It can and has occurred in that fashion. What one has to answer is whether or not that there is sufficient cause for it.


Quote:
In Twilight that means control over resources like petroleum products, industry or food. Imagine a federal government ordering a state to send half of its food stockpiles to the federals for "redistribution."


I'm wondering... Who would be stupid enough to try and order that? Who would have need of half a state's supply? By what authority are they ordering that? Why aren't they busy trying to facilitate the reconstitution of a functioning market economy? Where are they going to stockpile it? Who has the time to plan the logistics for it?

If we're going to posit such a severe scenario, then it helps to know the underlying causes. Any government official involved in resource distribution is going to be conscious of scarcity and delicate nature of public need. Instead of trying to centrally plan an economy at the highest levels of government, especially in the wake of such infrastructural loss, it would behoove everyone to establish communication and trade, to avoid precisely that scenario. "If you can send X tons of food, we can send X tons of steel," or vice a versa.

Understand that I'm not saying that that scenario can't occur and chances are that it will on a more local basis. However, relative isolation serves as an advantage in this case. You don't have the ability to just swoop in and seize something. To do so means an expenditure of already precious resources and a destabilization of a tentative state of affairs. And at the end of the day, nobody wants to have shoot someone or be shot at in order to feed their family.


davidns84

************
FightingFlamingo

Actually, the Feds can get money to the state guards indirectly by funnelling the money though FEMA. there won't be much, but it will be more than the state's can get on there own. FEMA has the legal authority to grant money to local and state authorities to promote civil defense and preparedness...
I touched on this in a document posted a while back about general mobilization issues (as we in the DC group generally see them, and have worked out related to Cold War US Army mobilization doctrine).

I had referenced something I called "The National Emergency Supplemental Funding Act of 1996" which I stated channeled money to the State Guards and Militia's through FEMA, as is legally done, and is actively done today(post 9/11 anti terrorism money). Chico addresses the some of the issues of personnel which I touched on also.



FightingFlamingo





************
Headquarters

anyways

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidns84
Well, they don't drink at the federal trough. Whatever the various state guards receive is going to come out of state budgets. Now, how much the federal government collects in taxes can affect state tax income, but both the Reagan-era military expansion and the current wartime pace of the US military followed on the heels of tax cuts. That leaves the states with what they can supply for their own forces.

As far industrial capacity goes, the Fed. gov't isn't making a force from whole cloth. The majority of what they are going to war with they already have. Even with aggressive expansion, they're going to be looking for firms can produce things in large numbers (it's why Haliburton received a no-bid contract for going into Iraq; there wasn't anyone else to do the job). There are a legion of smaller local businesses which can produce what is needed, but with less capacity. They're perfect for fulfilling the needs of a smaller state force.

Starvation as a primary cause is often responsible for rioting and mob violence, but civil war implies a sustained military conflict, which usually boiled down to ethic, political, or religious divisions. Starvation can be contributing factor or even THE trigger, but I can't think of a historical conflict where it was the primary cause (even Somalia). At least, not without a host of other factors surrounding it.



But demand + supply usually = trade. Starvation, at this point, is going to be more breakdown of the supply chain than a lack of supply. The paranoid, of course, will want to hoard and strong arm to obtain supplies. Hopefully the government steps in, cracks a few heads together, and keeps such impulses under control so that cooler heads can prevail.



I can think of a few that were. The Jamestown Uprising, the English Civil War, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the American Civil War, the Bolshevik Uprising...



It can and has occurred in that fashion. What one has to answer is whether or not that there is sufficient cause for it.



I'm wondering... Who would be stupid enough to try and order that? Who would have need of half a state's supply? By what authority are they ordering that? Why aren't they busy trying to facilitate the reconstitution of a functioning market economy? Where are they going to stockpile it? Who has the time to plan the logistics for it?

If we're going to posit such a severe scenario, then it helps to know the underlying causes. Any government official involved in resource distribution is going to be conscious of scarcity and delicate nature of public need. Instead of trying to centrally plan an economy at the highest levels of government, especially in the wake of such infrastructural loss, it would behoove everyone to establish communication and trade, to avoid precisely that scenario. "If you can send X tons of food, we can send X tons of steel," or vice a versa.

Understand that I'm not saying that that scenario can't occur and chances are that it will on a more local basis. However, relative isolation serves as an advantage in this case. You don't have the ability to just swoop in and seize something. To do so means an expenditure of already precious resources and a destabilization of a tentative state of affairs. And at the end of the day, nobody wants to have shoot someone or be shot at in order to feed their family.




other people take a different view - and historical examples may be interpretefd differently by people with other perspectives - I dont see the basis for believing that some sort of "order" necsissarily will prevail when people get pushed to their limits as you do.

But I am sure your scenario is fun too.


************
davidns84

Quote:
Originally Posted by Headquarters
Other people take a different view - and historical examples may be interpreted differently by people with other perspectives - I don't see the basis for believing that some sort of "order" necessarily will prevail when people get pushed to their limits as you do.

Plenty of historical events are up for interpretation, but I tend to look for historical parallels when writing alternate history. And really, it's just a game. My players will probably never put a fraction of that type of thought into the world their playing in, but if one of them does start to dig, I want to give them a decent answer.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Headquarters
But I am sure your scenario is fun too.

It ain't all hearts and flowers. The government is dealing with the various New America factions, the well armed and organized anti-government Sovereign Citizen movement which has taken control of territory in the Northwest the size of Switzerland, the new ultra-nationalist regime in Mexico is planning to launch a "Reconquista" campaign in the Southwest, Mormon quasi-theocratic isolationists are moving to take control of Utah, and a race war has erupted between heavily armed black and hispanic gangs along the West Coast, along with all the smaller marauder bands, domestic terrorists, and armed kooks. Lots of fun.


davidns84

************
Headquarters
"Beware of Geeks bearing Gifts"

yeah..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

History is a great and interesting subject.It is however, a variable as far as how percieves what from it .I too try to find historical similarities to give my campaign an air of sci not just fi.

It is likely you would have a situation where local goverments /administrators try to reestablish a functioning national state again.

It is however ,just as likely that there are those who will not .This may stem from a variety of causes -one being the unwillingness to part with resources that form the basis of their ability to hold on to power,another the perception that higher authority is not competent or representative .

This has happened a lot of times over the course of history and is sure to happen again imho.

People will look to the leadership that seem to hold promise of bettering their lives .Especially if their lives are in danger.When this is boiled down to the basic functions like real need for armed security at almost all times, a food supply that they know will be there when winter comes and medical facilities ready to contribute -they will most of the time choose to follow he who can provide this.If central goverment is too far away they will turn to local leaders .These leader may say they actually want to reconstruct the state and mean it to ,but still not be able due to a myriad of practical reasons.

Or they might actually make it - like the MilGov faction or the CivGov faction who is partially on their way .

But large "countries" or empires that have longer recorded histories than the US of A have been split up and warped into a plethora of smaller independent units.So in the mix of all you or I have said -thats my sci -most of the rest is just good fun to relay and the fi is what carries the campaign.I take a bleaker view you might say ,of the possibilities of a "grand reconstruction" after something like the events in Twilight 2000.New nation states wil emerge - quite possibly some of them will be on the north american continent.

Anyways -its not all "the writing on the wall" in my campaign , MilGov and CivGov are not formally at war ,there is a shaky peace and a stand offish kind of situation between the two.My players try their best to break the truce to save their warlord fiefs and constantly wage war against the two Govs as best they can .

The chaos makes for a good backdrop for all sorts of events like battles,specialforces missions,cloak and dagger stuff and of course a more strategy orientated segment with more "war room and council chamber "type play.

Headquarters

************
Webstral

Despite my differences of opinion on how well-funded and/or well-equipped state guards might find themselves to be in the years leading up to the Thanksgiving Day Massacre, I do feel that state guards have a tremendous role to play. Skipping over the issue of housing for dependents and all of its attendant problems, I have some ideas on how a state guard might best be organized. On paper, at least, it might look something like this in late 1997:

Civil Defense Battalion
Tasks:
Public order/safety (MP)
Communications (Sig)
Intelligence gathering/processing (HUMINT)
Infrastructure maintenance and repair (Engineering)
Possible HAZMAT handling (Chem)
Logistics (Quartermaster)
Transportation (Trans)
Maintenance (Maint)

Table of Organization
1 battalion headquarters
2 MP companies
1 heavy engineer company (maybe 2)
1 MI/HUMINT platoon
1 signal platoon
1 transportation platoon
1 chemical platoon
1 maintenance company/platoon
1 CDSC (Civil Defense Support Company)
1 Quartermaster platoon

The CDSC might include public affairs, JAG, and other specialists. Snipers and other combat-related personnel could be included in the battalion headquarters & headquarters company.

I gave this a lot of thought while I was in Iraq and after coming home. I believe the National Guard ought to have brigades structured for disaster relief. The mission of disaster relief involves many of the same tasks as rear area security and SUSO (Sustainment and Support Ops). While being set up for disaster relief might not make the National Guard ideally trained and organized for missions like the OIFs, the force structure and training could be adapted from the basic model.

National Guard aside, the state guard really shouldn’t be set up for high intensity combat. It’s the responsibility of the federal government to guard the nation’s borders. State guards exist to provide disaster relief and rear area security.

How the equipment is going to be provided is anybody’s guess. The heavy engineer companies would include a fair amount of earthmoving equipment. Earthmoving is what they do after a natural disaster—or even a manmade one. I did a little Internet shopping to see how much money an engineer company might consume in the process of properly equipping itself. Yikes! I’m not debating whether the money is worth it. I’m just saying yikes!

Another issue, which I don’t feel the National Guard has addressed very well, is assembling the troops in the event of a major disaster. I look at my rifle company. We come from all over the state. In the event of a big earthquake that messes up the transportation system, I can’t imagine how we were all supposed to assemble at Camp Parks RFTA. If the bridges in the Bay Area went out, I’d have to drive hours to get to Camp Parks. If the bridges are out, odds are that traffic throughout the Bay will be affected. Who knows how long it would take for me to get to my unit. I’d be better off driving up the street to the MI armory in San Rafael.

My situation may have been unique. A light infantry unit has a certain attractiveness to a certain type of National Guardsmen. About 95% of us were prior service. About 75% of us were prior service infantry, either in the Marines or the Army. These two facts set us apart from the run-of-the-mill National Guardsman, and many of my compatriots were willing to travel a considerable distance to up their weekends. (What freaks we are!) Other kinds of units may not have the same dispersal pattern. I don’t have enough information to say one way or another.

Okay, so I lied about not wanting to cover the issue of housing the dependents. How well the state guard is able to respond to disasters is dependent on how readily the unit is able to assemble. The engineers are not of the same utility if they are a hundred miles from their equipment. The same is true of all the specialists. It seems to me that there are a couple of solutions. (I welcome ideas I don’t mention.)

One method for ensuring the troops are together when they are needed is to copy the active duty forces and have bases/posts in which and around which the troops and their dependents live. There are some real problems with this. Who pays for the housing? How do we get the guardsmen to move to this housing? And what is the impact of not having the guardsmen living among the people they are serving? This last bit is more of a philosophical point, but I think it bears mentioning.

Another possibility is to establish armories in lots of communities. Let’s imagine that a fictitious 45th Civil Defense Battalion is based in the San Francisco Bay Area. Everyone in the 45th CDBn is required to live within a certain distance of their unit. An additional requirement might be that we don’t have to cross any bridges to get to our armories. This would require minimal disruption to the existing housing scheme. However, centralization (and it attendant economies of scale) would be impossible. This might have a real budgetary consequence.

Must run. I would be very interested to hear some other ideas on how to manage armories and the like for the state guard.


Webstral


************
FightingFlamingo

I'd go with a geographical assignment based on the individuals HOR. So as Chico had previously stated, I'd fill up the units with recruits who were marginally unfit for regular military duty, and assign them geographicly based on the nearest armory to the HOR. This may lead to urbanized area's getting more Bn's and have better manning than rural ones, but dispenses with the problem of infrastructure damage when the state guards are needed. Additionally, I don't see them as having an intended direct combat role, but more of a point, and rear area security role. Weapons would be obsolecent at best, and most likely surplus M1 Girands out of war stocks. Training would also be as described in chico's document above.
the basis for forcing those regected from regular military service from the draft boards would be the Militia Act (1792) and 32 USC 109.

Possible selective service codes for induction to the State Guards could be:
1W Conscientious objector ordered to perform alternative service
3A Registrant deferred because of hardship to dependents
3A-S Registrant deferred because of hardship to dependents (separated).
4A Registrant who has completed military service.
4A-A Registrant who has performed military service for a foreign nation.
4G Registrant exempted from service because of the death of his parent or sibling while serving in the Armed Forces or whose parent or sibling is in a captured or missing in action status.
4W Registrant who has completed alternative service in lieu of induction.


FightingFlamingo

************
Headquarters

Home Guard

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Over here we have something similar to the State Guard and National Guard called the Home Guard.It is meant to be deployed only on our own soil.

Every county is its own "district" and every municipality is its own "sector".

There is no "housingplan" or anything like that and in fact many people are obliged to serve as part of the home guards under mandatory conscription laws or as a part of their reservist agreement.Anyways -the bulk of its members are civilians with families,jobs etc.Rather than concentrating all the personel within a camp or something like that they make up units in a defined geographical area . A small town or community might be an infantry company . A larger town might be a battallion.If it has a shore line naval units like patrol boats or even civilian craft with weapons added by the home guard are available.Some officers and staff are the cadre and are full time .The rest gets called up ,don their uniforms and backpacks and move to the location of their armoury or their post if they already have their weapons at home.(Some do - others go to their armoury ,usually located a short drive or a brisk walk from their home .).This system allows for rapid mobilization of light units .(There are few or no armored units in this set up - they are regular army).And they can do a mulltitude of tasks like disaster relief,armed resistance or policing and so on.

Armouries and stockpiles are placed locally so that the units will be made up from local residents -primarily -and their gear is also readily available.

It should be said that heavier weapons like AA guns and mortars normally are "district " assets and kept in vicinity of police or military posts.But recoilles rifles,HMGs etc are normally distributed down to individual platoons or companies.A platoon armory can be built on privat land if duly compensated and some farmers actually have a small ammo bunker somewhere on their property.Earlier on every Home Guards man would have a G3 at home but all the shootings ended this ( normally tragic incidents were the whole family ws killed by the now bankrupt husband /father before killing himself and so on ).

Desentralization is the way to go if you dont expect to have alot of time to "make ready" .We dont -being a small country militarily and all ,and having alot of difficult terrain and fjords that make centralized mobilization difficult.We arm the already trained and enlisted civillians where they are and implement already laid down plans and command structures .(Home Guard is run by local boards where police ,political and military leaders make the descisions in times of war and crisis.)

Funding comes from the central budgets of course and equipment is more or less the same as regular army ,usually a bit older and more worn but still alright.Same rifles,LMGs and so on .)

Officers and NCOs get paid during excersises and crisis call ups and the enlisted man gets a ceratain compensation that is meant to cover his loss of pay from his workplace etc .All employers are obliged by law to accept someone leaving work if called up etc.

*********************
Webstral

RE: The State Guard overview posted by Chico

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I like the idea of calling up “retired” National Guard members under the age of 60. I am curious about the legal basis for doing so, however. A cadre of National Guardsmen would be a very useful asset when a state is considering building a state guard from scratch or heavily augmenting an existing state guard.

The emphasis on “individual skills such as marksmanship and first aid, riot control and civil defense/disaster relief…” seems very appropriate to the state guard job. The high rate of absenteeism is a shrewd analysis of the situation as we should expect it in most locations. I have made an exception for Vermont—especially after the Alarm. States that experience a very high volume of refugee traffic are very likely to be Johnnies-come-lately to the state guard experience and execute an eleventh-hour surge before the TDM.

I agree with the list of responsibilities for the state guards.

“Despite the high quality of the staff, the actual conduct of operations was spotty. Many of the recruits referred to the State Guards were unfit for service or generally reluctant to serve. The quantity of new recruits referred to the State Guards far exceeded the organization’s ability to evaluate, train and absorb. Much effort was wasted screening out the criminal, addicted and unsuitable. Organizations were in constant turmoil as new recruits reported and had to be absorbed and given further training while units were actively undertaking operational missions. While there was a solid cadre of mid and high grade NCOs and officers in the recalled retirees, there was a dearth of lower grade NCOs and officers to execute the plans developed by the staffs (who were themselves of only marginal ability to operate in the field).”

Good stuff! While I am not quite so optimistic about the ability and/or motivation of the former National Guard NCOs and senior officers to provide excellent staffing for the battalions and regiments, I support the general thesis that these men and women are going to give us something much better than what we might expect from an organization built from the ground up or built on pre-existing state guard structures. Some battalions will be superb, others will be very good, and others will be a mess. It’s the luck of the draw. A lot will depend on the National Guard organization of the state in question. In a state with a good National Guard tradition (I have read that Texas and Virginia are examples of this), we should expect comparatively large numbers of called-up retirees to create solid staffs. In a state with a sketchier National Guard tradition, we might expect a lesser product.

I love the description of the woes of the state guards during emergencies. This, I feel, is highly realistic.

“The low morale and perception of ineffectiveness drove absenteeism up as 1997 grew later. Guardsmen were expected not only to report for training two weekends a month but to report for regularly scheduled security duties (usually a week each month) and to be available for additional callups (such as for evacuations and disaster relief duties). As absenteeism grew the remaining members were tasked with more duties in a rapidly accelerating downward spiral.”

I love it! I wish I had written this.

Overall, I think the analysis of the fates of the various state guards is very good. I like the fact that the overall picture of the v1 canon doesn’t have to be changed much to account for most state guards. Many of them simply vanish under the pressure of post-attack realities. Nevertheless, we can pick and choose individual circumstances in which the state guard survives, either as an auxiliary to another military force or as a military force in their own right.

I’m going to incorporate this into my own planning and creating with few modifications.


Webstral

************
chico20854

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webstral
I like the idea of calling up “retired” National Guard members under the age of 60. I am curious about the legal basis for doing so, however. A cadre of National Guardsmen would be a very useful asset when a state is considering building a state guard from scratch or heavily augmenting an existing state guard.

I think the basis for this is that National Guardsmen who, after 20 or more years of service, retire and choose to hold off drawing their pension until age 60 (and thus get a larger pension) are required to remain a member of the retired reserve (as do retirees from the USAR and Active Duty). As reservists, they are liable to be called up.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Webstral
I love it! I wish I had written this.

Overall, I think the analysis of the fates of the various state guards is very good. I like the fact that the overall picture of the v1 canon doesn’t have to be changed much to account for most state guards. Many of them simply vanish under the pressure of post-attack realities. Nevertheless, we can pick and choose individual circumstances in which the state guard survives, either as an auxiliary to another military force or as a military force in their own right.

I’m going to incorporate this into my own planning and creating with few modifications.


Webstral

Glad you liked it. We're all about creating options here and trying to create a reasonable explanation of many things that GDW didn't explain in the v1 canon.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Webstral
Civil Defense Battalion
Tasks:
Public order/safety (MP)
Communications (Sig)
Intelligence gathering/processing (HUMINT)
Infrastructure maintenance and repair (Engineering)
Possible HAZMAT handling (Chem)
Logistics (Quartermaster)
Transportation (Trans)
Maintenance (Maint)

Table of Organization
1 battalion headquarters
2 MP companies
1 heavy engineer company (maybe 2)
1 MI/HUMINT platoon
1 signal platoon
1 transportation platoon
1 chemical platoon
1 maintenance company/platoon
1 CDSC (Civil Defense Support Company)
1 Quartermaster platoon



I'm a bit leery about one of the missions and organizations you list - Humint - for two reasons. First, given the partnership the state guards have with State Police forces, I think that there is a duplication of effort (and I'm not sure how much need there is for it). The mission is too intensive to try to do on the side (weekends and one duty week a month). The second is related - I think that creating voluntary military intelligence organizations under the control of state governors might cause (probably legitimate) concerns about control and civil liberties. (My point of view is from my experience in a National Guard MI unit... there were a heck of a lot of restrictions we had to operate under re: domestic operations, including an across-the-board prohibition from civil disturbance prep or taskings!). Given all the other things on their plate, I'd limit the sort of thing S-2 shops were looking for to threat info passed down from FORSCOM, FBI and state/local law enforcement and intelligence prep of the battlefield type work - transportation infrastructure data, possible logistic supplies, etc.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Webstral
How the equipment is going to be provided is anybody’s guess. The heavy engineer companies would include a fair amount of earthmoving equipment. Earthmoving is what they do after a natural disaster—or even a manmade one. I did a little Internet shopping to see how much money an engineer company might consume in the process of properly equipping itself. Yikes! I’m not debating whether the money is worth it. I’m just saying yikes!



I'm not sure if the State Guards have to buy their own heavy engineering equipment. There are a few options: 1) to use local and state transportation department's equipment (dump trucks and such) 2) require state & local governments to turn heavy equipment that is being retired as part of the regular turnover over to the state guards or 3) requisition civilian construction company's equipment upon declaration of emergency (or even write into all local & state government construction contracts that they'll hand it over upon an order from the governor). With the industrial mobilization for the war, I'm not sure how much construction equipment is going to be coming off the assembly lines that isn't painted green and destined for the Seebees, Red Hat Squadrons or Construction Engineer battalions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Webstral
Another issue, which I don’t feel the National Guard has addressed very well, is assembling the troops in the event of a major disaster. I look at my rifle company. We come from all over the state. In the event of a big earthquake that messes up the transportation system, I can’t imagine how we were all supposed to assemble at Camp Parks RFTA. If the bridges in the Bay Area went out, I’d have to drive hours to get to Camp Parks. If the bridges are out, odds are that traffic throughout the Bay will be affected. Who knows how long it would take for me to get to my unit. I’d be better off driving up the street to the MI armory in San Rafael.



I think Headquarters has pointed to part of the answer - local basing (as you also touched on). I know the MD National Guard has a policy that a soldier should be stationed within 50 miles of his home (for things such as involuntary assignment, for example). (On the other hand, we had soldiers coming to drill outside of Washington DC from Boston and Houston!) For the state guards, maybe go even more local, assigning guardsmen to a unit within 5 or 10 miles from a designated unit assembly site. Use National Guard armories, state police barracks, prisons and jails, other state emergency services sites (such as a state fire training academy), state parks and transportation department depots, maybe even local police stations and fire departments. I have a feeling that if you plotted these locations out on a map, you could get pretty good coverage of most populated areas. They also provide a (generally secure or easy to secure) place to store equipment (and if you go with having state guards use state transportation departments vehicles the depots make a natural assembly point) and are already paid for (and in 24-hour operation for some of the facilities, so no additional security expense). It also takes care of the housing issue for dependents, at least until it is time to evacuate - units provide no housing for the soldiers, as they are all within a 10 or 20 minute drive (or 1-hour bike ride) of home. I prefer to leave the housing of dependents after an evacuation an unresolved issue, as it provides part of the explanation for why the guards disintegrate following the strategic nuclear exchange.

Thanks for the input!

-Chico


chico20854


************
Webstral

I like the idea of obtaining heavy engineer equipment from local contractors. It would be interesting to see what the legal ramifications are. Can a state legally require equipment to be handed over under set conditions? I suppose this isn't terribly different from other commandeering rules. Anyway, even with potential legal obstacles I think the idea is workable. Someone in operations would have to keep track of the locally-available equipment, but this is hardly a major challenge.

I see the HUMINT side being an adjunct to police operations. During a breakdown in civil order, there will be a lot of crimes and a lot of information to gather. Police assets all the way up to the state level may find themselves overwhelmed. State guard interrogators can ease some of the burden. I agree that good interrogation skills require constant practice, but this hasn't prevented the National Guard from maintaining a number of MI units with interrogators. Better half a loaf than none. In any event, HUMINT does not represent one of the primary tasks for a civil defense battalion.

Webstral


Webstral





************
FightingFlamingo

Web, I think the federal and state govenments can requisition anything they need in times of crisis using imminent domain as an excuse, but they certainly can include emergency tranfer clauses into any contracts they have with whatever service providers they work with from fuel suppliers, to construction firms...


FightingFlamingo

************
Webstral

I suppose government contracts must be sufficiently lucrative that every contractor knows some contractor will buy into it. Ah, the beauty of the free market!

Webstral


************
kato13

While searching for FEMA/State Emergency Operations Centers for my mapping project i found these links and proper names for the state guards. Hope someone finds them useful.

Links are from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...111852942/pg_1

page 8 IIRC


Alabama State Defense Force, http://www.alsdf.org/

Alaska State Defense Force, http://www.ak-prepared.com/asdf

California State Military Reserve, http://www.militarymuseum.org/CASMR.html

Connecticut State Militia, http://www.ct.ngb.army.mil/militia/militia.asp

Florida State Defense Force, http://www.floridaguard.bravepages.com/

Georgia State Defense Force, http://www.dod.state.ga.us/SDF/

Indiana Guard Reserve, http://go.to/igr

Louisiana State Guard

Maryland Defense Force, http://www.mddefenseforce.org/

Massachusetts Military Reserve

Michigan Emergency Volunteers

Mississippi State Guard, http://groups.msn.com/MississippiStateGuard/

New Jersey Naval Militia, http://www.njnavy.com/; and New Jersey Army State Guard

New Mexico State Defense Force

New York Guard and New York Naval Militia, http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/
Advertisement

North Carolina State Guard, http://www.microsupportltd.com/ncsga/toc.htm

Ohio Military Reserve, http://www.ohio.gov/ohmr/; Ohio Naval Militia, http://www.sgaus.org/hist_onm.htm

Oregon State Defense Force, http://www.mil.state.or.us/SDF/index.html

Pennsylvania State Military Reserve, http://www.navpoint.com/~pasmr/

Puerto Rico State Guard

South Carolina State Guard, http://www.scsg.org/

Tennessee State Guard, http://home.att.net/~dcannon.tenn/TNSG.html

Texas State Guard, http://www.agd.state.tx.us/agdmain/s...indexframe.htm

Virginia Defense Force, http://www.virginiadefenseforce.org/home

Washington State Guard, http://www.washingtonguard.com/State_Guard/

Last edited by kato13; 03-15-2010 at 03:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-15-2010, 02:16 PM
chico20854's Avatar
chico20854 chico20854 is offline
Your Friendly 92Y20!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 347
Default

*bump*

(Good discussion, and has a TOE for a US-based State Guard battalion!)
__________________
I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory. Someday this war's gonna end...
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-15-2010, 03:26 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,354
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Added quotes as it helps readability.

If anyone has the missing attached document (Chico?) SGUS.doc it would be appreciated. I may have it but I'm in the middle of sorting all my docs.

Last edited by kato13; 03-15-2010 at 03:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-15-2010, 03:28 PM
Webstral's Avatar
Webstral Webstral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,687
Default

This was a good exchange. Ah, the good ol' days, when there was a free exchange of ideas without rancor. I had forgotten how much of my material was borrowed from others. Thanks to all of you who have helped me create a better product. Chico and flamingo contributed a lot in this thread, but others have been very insightful and helpful over the course of time.

Webstral
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-15-2010, 03:33 PM
chico20854's Avatar
chico20854 chico20854 is offline
Your Friendly 92Y20!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 347
Default

The file is on my web site, and I'll also attach it here.
Attached Files
File Type: doc state_guards.doc (32.5 KB, 102 views)
__________________
I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory. Someday this war's gonna end...
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.