Sign in or 
Location: The Allied States of America
Discussion: Is this map credible
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this
ratkeeper |
20. RE: Is this map credible
Jan 13 2008, 3:45 AM EST
I hope you like the new color scheme. Gwen Do you find this valuable? |
|
Genghis48 |
21. RE: Is this map credible
Jan 26 2008, 8:55 PM EST
If the Mississippi River would be the natural burier, then the Northwestern corner of WI. is land to land. This would cause a invading Army a narrow gap to attack. If you think that all bridges are all blown up!!! This would be an end run or a deversion for an attack. Back in the 80's their was a book out about such a situation, if the Germans and the Japanese had won WW2.
Do you find this valuable?
|
SpaceTrucker |
22. RE: Is this map credible
Jan 27 2008, 1:03 AM EST
It probably doesn't show Alaska and Hawaii because they are outside of the protection of the continental states. Hawaii has no real assets for someone to take them out, yet they would be isolated. Alaska on the other hand, once cut off from the continental states would be easy pickings for another country like Canada to take control of easily and most likely would go to them after all is said and done. Russia or another country may try and step in and take control of it for it's oil and other resources but, I believe Canada being right there would be more apt to end up with it after a small fight for it as Russia surely wouldn't want to take on Canada, the U.K. and Australia at the same time. With the turmoil the country is in, it's possible the Mexicans would take back Texas, (since it was already supposed to have gone back to them as it is,) as well as parts of lower California, Arizona, and New Mexico. Oklahoma could well end up being it's own independent country as well, since it's primarily an Indian Nation with the rest of Arizona and New Mexico and the Texas pan handle going to them. The southeastern states would combine again to become the CSA and the northeastern states becoming their own country. There'd be a few hold outs of neutrality such as Oregon and Northern California. With Bill Gates' money Washington state could well be another one. That would leave the rest of the North Central states to be fought over for their vast farmlands. There's not enough of a population of those combined states to take over the rest of west, with the money that's out there.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
BigDang |
23. RE: Is this map credible
Jan 27 2008, 9:30 PM EST
Hey SpaceTrucker, we don't know if bombs may have gone off in Mexico or Canada as well. I don't see the people living in the Southwest, even those of Hispanic descent allowing Mexico to take them over. With Ft Hood in Texas, there is a lot of fire power in that state. The people of Arizona and New Mexicao would not be very keen on the idea either of being governed by Mexico. Recall that the fake Marines had said that the missile launch hit N. Korea and Iran. Of course we have no verification of that. The Canadians would want to help if they were able. We know that the Chinese have sent aid. What we don't know is if this attack was limited to the US, or other nations were hit as well - like Westen Europe. There are so many ways these writers could take this program.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
SpaceTrucker |
24. RE: Is this map credible
Jan 28 2008, 1:50 AM EST
From the Chinese broadcast we know it was just the U.S., Someone mentioned elsewhere on here that the Canadian government had decided to stay out of it as far as sending troops to assist us, they didn't say they didn't take over Alaska though, they have wanted it for some time now. With all the Mexicans already living in the lower boarder states, I don't believe it would take much for them to decide to take them back at least partially. And Texas is only still part of the U.S. because the Mexicans are still letting us keep it, Fort Hood is far from big enough to stop an entire army with all the Mexicans already there. With Fort Hood dispatched to other parts of the country to help in the aftermath, it wouldn't be hard for Texas to fall to Mexico at the very least. Not to mention towns like L.A., Phoenix, Yuma, as well as much of southern New Mexico, which wide open desert and not many towns. Gotta remember the vast majority of the population of those areas is either Mexican or American Indian, and with how the American Indians have been treated over the last millennium by the U.S., it wouldn't take much for them to tell the U.S. where to get off at, should Mexico ask them to join them during a time such as this. Especially when food supplies start to dwindle and no power or other resources coming from the U.S. government. Granted with L.A. and S.F. gone, there's not much use of that land left and there are still plenty of areas there that would be worthless, the rest of it would be easy pickings for the Mexicans to take over in the aftermath. What's left of the Armed Services out there would have left the area since there wouldn't be enough left to worry with anymore and the greater threat being elsewhere. The money that was out there that survived it, would be moved to other places around the world. Much of which would have left with the Military, the rest through private means. Planes, boats, etc.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
SpaceTrucker |
25. RE: Is this map credible
Jan 28 2008, 2:02 AM EST
In the case of Alaska, their only connection to the U.S. would be cut off when upper western Washington state was hit, leaving only a way through Canada, with noone getting through to the U.S., they would ask and get it from Canada, mostly likely by turning itself over to them at worst case scenario. With Congress out of commission, there's nothing stopping Alaska from removing itself from the U.S. and switching countries.Hawaii on the other hand, being in the south pacific, may end up in the hands of China or Australia, though there's nothing really there to fight over outside of the many volcanos. It could well end up being it's own independent nation again. Granted there's military bases there but, with the mainland in distress, they would evacuate to assist in protecting it, assuming the bases survived. With a military leader in charge and the resources needed elsewhere, there's no strategic reason to leave forces there anymore. Do you find this valuable? |
|
SpaceTrucker |
26. RE: Is this map credible
Jan 28 2008, 2:24 AM EST
Also you have to remember the areas with the military bases on the west coast have all been hit, so there's nothing on the west coast to do anything therefore all the resources would have to come by means of the east coast bases, which many of them would still be left. The major one, Norfolk, for certainty. What military that would be left would be ordered to maneuver to the east coast for supplies and to help protect the nation. It would have to spread out from there. Granted there are a few places that what forces are out in the pacific can land at on the west coast, it would be mostly up in the northern areas such as Oregon and southern Washington State, that is if they can climb out of the waters anywhere around there, with all the cliffs on the west coast. Those areas would already be well guarded by the military in those areas. Those would be there to back up the Pacific Fleet which would move to rebuild it's bases there. Those in the south pacific would be dispatched to help with the fleet in the Indian Ocean to relieve the ones there so they could come home and resupply. Major "public" airports may be gone but, the military wouldn't waste any time getting ones open for their needs. Some infrastructure in large cities may start to fail but, smaller towns like Jericho would make it. Then you'll have states like TN which didn't get hit, "volunteering" to help bring the others back. As I said, even with this kind of disaster, I don't foresee it taking as long as it's depicted to regain some sort of normalcy anywhere in the Nation. Remember 9/11, it would be like that on a grander scale, not like New Orleans, where a lot of people could care less what happened. There's a lot of difference between a terrorist attack and a natural disaster in a disaster prone area.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
SpaceTrucker |
27. RE: Is this map credible
Jan 28 2008, 2:42 AM EST
I'm not saying those lives matter any more or less, it's just how people look at things. Just like how people can care less if people's homes in California burn because they are living in a area that's prone to fires, or fall down a cliff because it was built on a sandy hillside that turned to mud in a rain storm. Especially at the prices they pay for that stupidity. (Me for one, I wish I could afford a house out there, I still wouldn't build there, I just wish I had the money they spent building there.) (Even still we send firefighters out there to help put out the flames when they are burning. And the resources went to N.O. to help out, though they weren't allowed to do anything. Not to mention the public sector volunteers that were sent packing when they showed up too.)With it being major metro areas that were hit, you can rest assured that people would flock to help out. Do you find this valuable? |
|
SpaceTrucker |
28. RE: Is this map credible
Jan 28 2008, 2:52 AM EST
With Jericho being as close to a major interstate as they are claiming on one map, it would be really hard for me to believe that noone come through there, at least looking for fuel enroute to/from either Denver or Kansas City. Even some truckers would stop, looking for a place to rest and to find out what's going on. And why is it that noone seems to have a CB radio in that town? There would have been plenty of truckers talking about what's going on out there when it happened and they could have gotten out to them as they were going through, at least initially.
Do you find this valuable?
|
drock1 |
29. RE: Is this map credible
Jan 29 2008, 11:16 PM EST
yes it is possible. I live between 2 interstates (I-65 about 5 miles north of me and I-10 about 14 miles south.) some people claim to have been oon both several times a year and have never been to or heard of my town
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
SpaceTrucker |
30. RE: Is this map credible
Jan 31 2008, 12:53 AM EST
There's a big difference between being on I-65/I-10 and I-70, having driven both I can safely say the areas your talking about is a big difference, On I-70, especially in that part of Kansas, there is a much wider gap between off ramps than there is on I-65/I-10, wherefore someone going through your area may not have to stop to fuel up, they will on I-70 in the location of Jericho, especially if they are driving a car. When you get into talking about desiel trucks and tanks they can easily bypass the area but people driving autos can't. Going from Denver to Kansas city that area is a much needed fuel stop for people traveling along I-70 in autos. State Patrol officers would be the ones most likely to have already run through there for no other reason than to get fuel and would have checked in with town hall while they were there as they were out patrolling and working accidents/breakdowns/etc. Especially if they hadn't heard from the town after such an attack on it's major city.A small town like Jericho depends upon it's traffic coming in off the interstate and at least has some area near the interstate set aside for travelers to get fuel at least for revenue for the town. On the other hand on another map where it shows Jericho some 30+/- miles from the interstate, makes sense that they didn't see anyone. But, right off of it, no I don't believe it. Like I said they could have sent someone to sit along the Interstate, being right off of it, to flag someone down just hours after the initial blasts when phones went down and they were having trouble getting in touch with someone. The interstate through there would have filled up with people leaving the Denver area and there would surely also be highway patrol out there to get word out they needed help in the initial hours at least. Do you find this valuable? |
|
SpaceTrucker |
31. RE: Is this map credible
Jan 31 2008, 12:55 AM EST
Even beyond the initial hours, in the following initial days there would be some travel along the I-70 corridor as military and others would be looking to get out of the area or get into the Denver area.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
tisk1015 |
32. RE: The UNITED STATES point of view.
Feb 20 2008, 12:15 AM EST
Will there ever be a point of view from the east if Jake travels to Columbus Ohio to get support.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
LexingtonCamp |
33. RE: Is this map credible
Mar 29 2008, 5:02 PM EDT
"Heh... just noticed in my post above that i referred to East-Western Louisiana. D'oh... i of course, meant South-Eastern. :DHave HAwaii a kingdom again, allied with Japan after the attacks. Do you find this valuable? |
