|
Edited on Fri Feb-01-08 02:32 PM by happyslug
If you want to attack the US, you have to be willing to take control of the Great lakes and/or the Mississippi river system. Thus the two most important cities in North American for Military purpose are New Orleans and Quebec. You control both cities you control America, you control neither, you have nothing (The Columbia/Snake River system is a third leg to this basically two leg system, a possible way to attack the other two legs, and a route from the other two legs to the Pacific, thus it is either a route to take on the other two legs, or something to be taken AFTER you took the other two legs).
When France first secured New Orleans in the early 1700s (Quebec had been founded in 1608, a year after Jamestown), it was on a collision course with the then British Colonies. The British Colonies had access to better goods and were more willing to move to North American (Less English migration then Scottish, Irish and German migration, with the Dutch staying in New York after the English took it from the Dutch). Some of the lack of immigration can be blamed on the French policy of NOT seeding anyone but a Good Catholic (No French Huguenot need applied, they migrated to the English Colonies instead) but the big problem was the basic corruption of the French Government and its colonial office. French Colonist from Acadia (Now Nova Scotia) were removed from Nova Scotia when it became English in about 1715. They at around for over ten years in France till enough bribes had been paid for them to migrant to Louisiana. Incompetence and Greed, and you wonder why France had a revolution in 1789.
Anyway, if the French had played they cards rights, they still would hold North America, but they did not and in 1759 the English corrected the Mistake of Giving back Quebec in the early 1700s by retaking it (Montreal fell the next year). The British never had New Orleans (The the French stayed in de factor control of the Ohio and Mississippi River system even as New Orleans was Spanish Ruled). The British, liked their French predecessors, like the profits from the fur trade more then getting immigrants, and fell into the same trap the French had been in. Thus during the war of independence the British were never able to use their control of the Great Lakes against the US Revolutionary Army and with the subsequent moved westward the US took Control of the Ohio and then the Mississippi River Valleys. After the Revolution, the British, do to the simple fact it was to involved in the Wars of the French Revolution, let the US take over not only De Jure up to the Great lakes but also in realty. In fact the US was able to divert most of the Great lakes trade to New York City with the Competition of the Erie Canal through the Mohawk Valley of Upper New York State.
With the advent of the US Civil War and the appearance of the two largest army in the World fighting in Virginia, the British realized they could NOT hold Canada without United States approval, thus left Canada become de facto part of the United States (well de jure still part of the UniteD Kingdom) in 1867. Economically both Countries had been one since at least the 1820s (and maybe the 1790s when many of the small farmers of New England moved to Ontario for the free land, the leadership of Ontario and Canada mostly came from the Upper Classes of the Middle and Southern Colonies who had backed the Crown in 1776, but the actual farmers ancestors had fought at Bunker Hill, and NOT with the British).
Anyway, if you want to attack the US, you attack Quebec of New Orleans first (Or Storm up the Columbia and then fight DOWN to New Orleans if you want to do it the hard way). No one right now had the capability to take either city and hold it even if BOTH the US and Canada would abolish they militarize today (The people themselves can stop any small effort, thus the effort must be large enough to take AND hold either city, which require significant number of troops, supplies and ships. Once landed it must hold what it takes and march on the other city AND Chicago (You can ignore New York City and the whole East Coast till the Great Lakes and Mississippi River system is taken). Such a Movement takes time, men and supplies and different type of Ships then to get the same items to North America. The US and Canada could mobilize themselves by that time and defeat the Invaders. Thus why waste time to defeat an army that will never come, for it is looking at long term defeat?
As to a Chemical, biological or Atomic attack, those require much less effort them trying to take over North America, but the prevailing wind blows West to East so any attack on any East Coast City will float into the Atlantic and any attack on a West Coast City will flow into the sparsely settled Western States. Thus most of the Country will NOT be directly Affected by such an attack, and NOT being affected is available for people to move to out of the area attacked AND to supply men, material and other aid to the affected area. It may take time but it will come for we think of ourselves as one country. Even the most Anti-liberal, new York City hating Redneck will do what he can to help New York City if it is attacked, for it is an attack on HIS country. Al Queda is the most organized group that could do such an attack and the most it could do is one attack per year (and probably only one attack per decade). If that is the case it is a waste of Taxpayers money to prepare for an attack that will NEVER come or if it does WILL NOT BE THE TYPE WE ARE PREPARED FOR. What is needed is a General plan, a plan for a likely problem and modify it if something else happens. Lets look at the three most lily problems:
1. An terrorist attack on New York City, probably non-nuclear given the size of most nuclear weapons (And as to small suit-case size weapons, the blast, while larger than most conventional explosion, is within the blast of a large collection of bombs).
2. Hurricane on New Orleans.
3. A San Francisco Earthquake type but in Southern California.
These were considered the three most likely "disasters" probable under the Clinton Administration. All should have been planed for but were NOT. The Business community of New York did NOT want to appear that it was at risk, when it was. The cost to prepare for such an attack was high, Strengthening the Subway, providing Independent power to the Subway from at least two sources INDEPENDENT of the rest of the City and moving the Headquarters for any such disasters OUT of New York City with dedicated buried duplicated lines between the Fire stations, the Police Stations, the Central office in New York City and a disaster command center outside the City (Albany be a good location, but you have to have that duplicate secured and buried lines to make it work). Plans to move people out of New York City (Which should include connecting the Subway system to the regional Rail system to permit the Subway to move people OUT and for Amtrak trains to move in to move people out)
The problems with New Orleans were known while before the Hurricane. The Plan should have included HOW to evacuate ALL AND ANY areas that sits below Sea level. Plans to grab those School Buses and to put people on them BEFORE THE STORM EVEN HIT. Improved Amtrak Service that could be transferred to New Orleans in an emergency to gt people out. Plans to where the people should go etc.
Southern California is more open than New Orleans or New York City. While Amtrak trains should be part of the plan, given the possibility of track disruption should be secondary to such trains in New Orleans and New York City. The tracks should be made as Earthquake proof as possible so they can be used, but given the freeway system moving buses into the area to move people out may be the better solution.
Remember we need to do two things, both at the same time. First is move people out of the Area who are NOT needed (i.e. they place of work no longer exists and have no place to live) AND then bring in men, material and supplies to help the area recover. To a degree the trains in and the trains out can do both duties (i.e. passenger trains bring in troops and workers from the rest of the Country, and refugees out, fright trains can bring in supplies, and move people with cars out, people may even be willing to go in Fright Cars for a day to two just to get out of the damaged area.
Please note if you take people out you have to have a plan where to take them. Those plans should be known NOT only to the city named above, but also the Cities where you plan to move people. You will need to plan HOW to get Men, material and Supplies to the area affected. Once these plans are drawn up, they can be modified as needed, for example, Houston get hit by a Hurricane instead of Ne Orleans, less movement of people OUT, but the plan can be the basis for the problem.
This administration has just refused to do any of the above, they are so into "Individualism" they want everyone to take care of themselves in such disasters. Furthermore this plan to improve the National Guard also does NOT address this problem, the problem in New Orleans was HOW TO GET PEOPLE OUT NOT how to get the National Guard and other troops in.
Aside: People from New Orleans are going to hate me for saying this, but part of the planning is to accept that the above will take place and design the city to minimize the loss cause by the "attack". In the case of New Orleans, it may be better to abandon the city (Except for the French Quarter which is above sea level) than to try ot save the city after each Hurricane. Making New Orleans a small town on the lower Mississippi and moving most of its population to Baton Rouge makes sense in that you eliminate a potential set of problems i.e. what happens of the levies fail? Remove the Levies they can no longer fail. That means a much smaller New Orleans, but that may be the cost of planning for Hurricanes.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
