I was talking with a friend of mine the other day, and he keyed me in to a game that is currently in development called “Homefront”. I’m curious to hear what you all think of the scenario presented in this trailer. Part of the reason my friend is so excited about this game is that the story is written by John Milius, the guy who wrote the movie “Red Dawn” (one of my friend’s favorite movies) and co-wrote “Apocalypse Now”. He didn’t say, but I think another reason is that the game takes place (or at least starts in I think) here in Colorado (Montrose, Colorado to be precise given what is shown in this earlier trailer).
My only issue is, the premise seems unlikely - it seems predicated upon the notion that the US is mainly impotent and only devolving socially and scientifically. But alternate timeline stories can be fun if done well.
The premise is just plain impossible. Japan or South Korea - without US troops (there’s less than 30,000 in SK) - are still a match for North Korea, even if NK has 1 or 2 nukes. The North Korean army is huge, but it’s obsolete and has poor logistics. They’d win the first few days… but over weeks? Months? Seoul will be destroyed… but that’s as far as NK will go, unless China is involved. Even if the US left the region, there’s Australia as a major Western military power (which the UK, and Europe to a slightly lesser extent, has a strong partnership). Japan has the second largest indigenous navy (real navy… not a river boat fleet) in Asia, with TWO aircraft carriers, and I believe the third largest air force. So what if NK has 1.1 million troops? SK has 600,000 troops with better technology and the home turf advantage (2:1 ratio… Sun Tzu says 3:1 is the rule if you match your enemy punch for punch and invade him)… plus the support of Japan, who clearly doesn’t want to see a unified Korea under the North. Also please note that SK has a population of 50 million well fed, and highly educated citizens (and the support of all industrialized nations except China and Iran). NK has a population of 25 million starving and poorly educated citizens (only China and Iran for support). NK loses in a war of attrition.
Plus come on… Vietnam!? They beat the US and then China in 30 days. It’s like Southeast Asia’s version of invading Russia in winter. Then we have Indonesia: that’s an Islamic country. Ask the Soviets or Americans, how fast a “superior army” can get it’s ass kicked by Allah’s children. Thailand also has a reasonably strong military, and the jungle terrain is reminiscent of Vietnam.
Poorest “military thriller” background I’ve seen in a long time. The resurrection of the Soviet Union would have been more believable… or even this. 
It seems to me that the trailer is suggesting that South Korea somehow willing joins instead of being conquered due to the different stance of the son of Kim Jong Il after his death. Other than that, I think I agree with your assessment of the scenario Narg.
Not to mention, gas 20 bucks a gallon? When it was approaching 5 bucks a gallon car companies were tripping over themselves trying to get electric cars designed and ready to market. We simply wouldn’t put up with it.
It’s still hog wash though…
How does a country of 50 million industrialized people, handle the brunt of 25 million poor and uneducated people? They’re gonna have 25% unemployment overnight. Most people in NK are either: farmers (who can’t farm enough), military (who are just armed thugs), and bureaucrats (who just push useless paperwork). The farmers can stay. The military is useless in a reunification, SK soldiers are better trained and equipped, plus the NK military trains with broomsticks. The bureaucrats are totally useless in reunification. What do you need communist bureaucrats for, in a democratic government? Especially since most of those bureaucrats are running processes or functions that are totally useless (just there to give them a job).
There’s absolutely [u]NO WAY[/u] that South Korea would allow themselves to become governed by North Korea. That’s insane. SK has twice the population, the superior economy, and most important of all: Freedom. You mean to tell me, that SK will give up MMO and the internet? Cause that’s what NK does not have, nor would continue to have, if NK want to control their people. What does South Korea gain? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
South Korean politicians may like to talk about peaceful reunification to win elections, but in all honesty, there’s no realistic plan to peacefully reunify Korea. The logistics of taking 50% more people, who are 99% more useless, will crash their economy. It’s more than reeducation: it reprogramming. North Koreans are raised from birth, with some seriously screwed up teachings and ethos. They are truly brainwashed. Take all the problems of the Germany reunification (which still hasn’t healed), and multiply them by a thousand.
China won’t allow South Korea to govern North Korea, because that means they’ll have a pro-US ally, right at their door step. That’s the reason why China got involved with this whole mess to begin with.
I’d put more money on Texas succeeding from America, than I would on Korea reunifying.
I’m not disagreeing with you. I just thought I’d point out that you seemed to miss that in the trailer.
Sorry. Didn’t mean to come off so aggressive.
Just so disappointed by the writer. 
I think Texas is quite likely to succeed … I know the economy is bad and all that, but really, doubting that is kind of overly pessimistic.
Now, I’d be quite surprised if they seceded, especially since they already got their butts whupped once when they tried it.
[duck]
No problem. I think part of the problem is that the writer really had to reach in to some very unlikely areas in order to have a story in which the US is invaded. (The EMP attack part, however, is an extremely clear and present danger.) While relations with Russia aren’t at their best (especially with the recent news of people on the east coast being arrested for being spies), they don’t really have any benefit in taking us on like in the past. China seems to be looking to crush us economically rather than militarily. The only big names left then are Iran and North Korea, and of the two, Iran is more likely to use unconventional forces against us. That just leaves North Korea. It just isn’t as simple to come up with a really good scenario as when he came up with Red Dawn and the USSR was a very real threat.
I thought about it for a bit… but I really doubt that. I think all 50 states have threatened or threatening to leave the Union at some point in time. Alaska was all about leaving, back when Carter was signing environment protection. Mississippi was all about leaving during the civil rights era, when they didn’t want to give Blacks rights. It’s all rhetoric. They’re just upset a political group is in power, that they don’t like. That changes every 8 to 12 years. Then the OTHER states complain about leaving until the cycle runs through again. 
Besides… every time a hurricane hits Texas - causing millions of dollars in damages - they’re all about the Union being united to pay for relief aid and insurance for repairs. :roll:
Oh! Some cool North Korea stuff…
Cute Propaganda Traffic Women!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDHhW5_RxKc
Naturally, because they’re so cute, Westerners have made a website for them.
Housing Propaganda that fails!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpv3JHyXd7A
I’d rather him have used this plot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-hyVzTVDLg
And because those traffic women are so cute…
Not everything the North Koreans do, is wrong.
I don’t know how the US will ultimately break apart, but when states start seceding then I think that will clearly be the beginning of the end. It will probably ultimately be economic; there are some real challenges ahead if we don’t figure out fusion and can’t get our economy back into good enough shape to pay off the debt.
But Texas doesn’t have to secede to succeed. The debt isn’t THAT big. Yet.
We’ve already gone through complete economic collapse: Great Depression. Union still stood strong.
I’m not saying that the US will last forever… but it’s going to have to be more than just the federal government asserting it’s superiority, complete failing economy, or radical social reform across the population.
Been there. Done that. The thing about Americans, is that suffering and misery tends to solidify the people, rather than tear them apart. We aren’t loyal to a person… we’re loyal to an ideal (largely embodied by the Constitution). So long as that ideal doesn’t change, the majority of the states remain together. That and there is safety and solidarity in unity: Texas are more worried about the Mexicans, Chinese, and Indians, than they are about Louisiana, California, or Alaska.
Traditionally, a nation falls, because an external power conquers it militarily. Other factors also have a cause, and there have been exceptions, but the death knell is when someone else army is marching in your streets. Otherwise, you just rebuild and reform.
Sure… people hate the Federal Government… but they don’t hate the institution that the Federal Government represents. That’s why even the craziest nut jobs are always ranting about, “taking back their America.” They don’t want to break away: they want to restore what they believe is ideal… all 50 states of it.
Texas could succeed. They signed a treaty upon joining that is still in effect that would allow them to succeed at any time they wanted to.
No they can’t. You’re listening to Fox News again.
They surrendered unconditionally in the Civil War. They REJOINED the Union in March 30, 1870 with ratification of the new Amendments, and submission of state to the federal government. Their earlier treaty is null and void. They were not admitted into the Union: they were annexed.
Besides… the entire point of the Civil War, was that once you join the Union, you cannot leave. That’s one reason why Puerto Rico ain’t so keen on the idea of being #51. They can still leave. In fact, Congress asks them ever few years, if they wanna be a state, remain a territory, or go independent.
EDIT
Took me awhile to find it… here’s the documentation.
Source: http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/ … h1870.html
No where is it stated that Texas can leave. In fact, the wording makes Texas a state that submits to the Union. And for once, the wording is very clear and not hard to understand: I’m sure that was intentional. It’s not a treaty: it’s an entitlement. I hear the same nonsense with Virginia, because they’re a Commonwealth and not a State. Doesn’t matter if they called themselves a Protectorate of God: they’re a state where it needs to count. I suppose, theoretically, Congress could allow a state to leave… but that would require the President to not veto (if they can’t overturn the veto) or getting the Supreme Court to not rule it’s unconstitutional. That power resides alone with the federal government: a state cannot do it by itself.
Actually they do want to become a state more than ever mostly because they are feeling jipped with territorial status and they don’t want to lose the benifits of being part of the US. Of course its still a long way from being the next state, but the trend has been growing year-after-year.
As for that text, I don’t see where it nullify’s the previous treaty save that if it would succeed all citizens are allowed to keep their US citizenship if they wanted. It does say that they cannot do so via rebellion such as declaring war and that only for the legislature. I di agree though that it would require the Federal government allowing it to seceed if they did though mostly because they will cite the Civil War as precedent.
Not that I think anyone who has any sense in Texas wold value secession. They aren’t in the position to do so even if there was no threat of military force simply because there not an economic, military or social powerhouse. In fact the only state that could be viable if seceeded is California because of its economy and even they aren’t thinking of it (except in some flights of fancy).
I doubt the Supreme Court would agree that Congress has the power to do that. Nowhere is secession ever mentioned in the Constitution. An amendment would probably be necessary to specify how the secession process would have to work.
Edit: There’s an actual court case (from the Reconstruction period) that discussed this. It declared that only revolution or the “consent of the states” could dissolve the union, that Texas even when it seceded the first time, never actually left the US; therefore when Texas acted to create the new, seperate Confederate government everything it did was all void, meaningless. (There was other stuff concerning the bonds that were directly at issue.)
So there’s direct Supreme Court precedent saying that States cannot leave. I doubt an act of Congress would be enough to overcome this.
None of the states are going to succeed. Seriously, trapped between Mexico and the US, what possible benefits could they conceivably home to gain by leaving the union? None. People like to make noises like that from time to time, but it will never happen.
It’s because they actually succeeded from the Union: they screwed themselves with that. When Texas succeeded on February 1, 1861 - they effectively rendered all agreements with the United States null and void, and used that “get out of jail free card”. They then refused to acknowledge the United States authority or any agreement (that was the whole point). Texas did that of their own volition. Texas then joined the Confederate States of America in March 2, 1861. On April 12, 1861 the CSA surrendered (well… General Lee… but that’s moot). The CSA members weren’t territories or states: they were lands of conquest. More importantly: they had no sovereignty. President Andrew Johnson - because Lincoln was dead - began the process of Reconstruction, where the lands of conquest became territories. Texas eventually rejoined the Union as a state in March 30, 1870.
So the reasons why the earlier treaty isn’t in effect, is because:
#1: Texas declared secession and announced that all agreements with the USA were over. This they could do, according to the original treaty. So they did it… but that was a one time deal.
#2: Texas declared war on the USA. They were now an enemy nation.
#3: Texas was conquered by the USA and surrendered unconditionally. There were no agreements between Texas and the USA anymore, except that Texas was now America’s bitch.
#4: Texas rejoined the USA as a state under a new agreement (not as a territory or a republic or a nation… it specifically says they joined as a state).
#5: After the Civil War, it was “common acceptance” that once a state joins, it can’t leave. Whole point of the war itself; ending slavery was just icing on the cake.
One can’t say Texas earlier treaty applies, simply because Congress didn’t explicitly cancel it, anymore than one could say Japan’s or Germany’s pre-WW2 treaties still apply, because Congress didn’t explicitly cancel them. You lose a war, surrender, and get occupied: you obey the winner’s rules. That’s what losing means… hence the reason why sane people just ignore Texans claiming they can break away.
From the opinion itself:
So the Supreme Court’s stance on the entire secession thing from the Civil War? It never happened. The States themselves thought it did, but they were wrong. (Interestingly, this decision was handed down at a time when Congress itself preferred to treat the ex-Confederate states as conquered territories they could do with as they wanted, rather than as States entitled to demand representation in Congress, because this gave the Northern states a lot more power.)
Given the statement that it’s simply unconstitutional for states to leave, I find it hard to believe that the Supreme Court would be on board with the US Congress passing a law expelling a State from the US.