Reds vs Blues

>>33836689
>>>>/pol/

>>33836689
Pretty sure the cities would all just get besieged and be starved into submission. They are completely surrounded and isolated from eachother

>>33836689
Whoever can keep the lights on, food production distributed, and water/fuel flowing for the long run and likely regional warlords and military districts by that point. Large metropolitan areas without significant nearby farmland and high levels of civic participation will make post Katrina New Orleans look relatively normal

>>33836826
>implying it would be farmers vs city slickers in a race to see who dies out, and not a conventional conflict over something other than "muh gun's"

>implying the US doesn't import a lot of food anyway

>>33836826
>>33836830
The cities have all the ports though. And all the money. They could just import food. Also they have significantly more people.

>>33836863
Actually the US exports most of its food. We grow a lot of beans and grains.

>>33836872
not in the cities though, which are all blue

Literally everyone loses.

What I'd see happening is two main fronts at the outset (I mean, obviously if we're talking left vs. right), but the two sides are so large and encompass so many other ideologies that, while the conservative front would probably propagate quickly, before anything would come close to settle down there would be infighting and faction wars that would essentially cause the country to balkanize. Which, while I've always thought that the US would fare much better as a whole as larger sovereign regions with a loose trade and military coalition (say, 5 to 8 provinces), in this scenario the infighting leading to this arrangement would cause massive economic damage not only domestically but to the rest of the world, as well as probably sparking the real WWIII as so many other world powers would have a vested interest in the outcome.

Basically imagine us becoming the next Middle East, just politically militant instead of religiously.

>>33836702
eat dick

>>33836689
I think red, most armed mil is red origin, I think without (((nato))) intervention, it would be a clear outcome.

>>33836863
Import with what money? Value of the dollar would tank. As to people it is hard to keep them fed for more than a few days let alone weeks especially if bridges collapse and rails are wrecked. ..... and coming back to food buy from whome? Canada is the next biggest grain producer and they are a distant second. I get ports will be strategic strong points but that will be more for fuel and scraping by on trade while they have anything to work with. The south and extreme northeast should be ok but Virginia to Connecticut and west coast are toast. The inland cities are more complicated

File: 1487689961528.png (137KB, 1158x1393px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1158x1393px

This has already been discussed

>>33836826
I would imagine widespread internal conflict within blue bastions. Only a matter of reports of witch hunts and mob lynchings to spark a civil war.

File: 1487689899879m.jpg (236KB, 1024x693px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 1024x693px

>>33836953
Several times

>>33836689
I honestly don't think there'd be much of a war. If it was just reds vs. blues--so assuming the existing government doesn't really get involved--I think we'd just split into separate territories or states and not have anything to fight over.

No right-wingers would be willing to fight to control people in California for instance, and no lefties give a shit what we do in Tennessee. I think if it was just left to the people we'd pretty amicably split up into separate nations and leave each other alone. California/Oregon/Washington would be a blue nation, most of the urbanized East Coast would be another blue nation, and the rest of the US would pretty much be content to let them leave.

The only cause of a war would be if there was an entity like the US government trying to keep the two sides together.

>>33836963
>>33836953
And yeah, these are framed as government vs the people, but it's applicable depending on whichever party is in control of the government

>>33836892
I really cannot argue this one too much as it is about what I figure equilibrium would be after a 40ish percent die off from various causes (senior citizens are fucked)

>>33836973
Of course the existing government would get involved; the country would be in a state of civil war. The government and existing military would both be split based on their origins / beliefs, and would move to join up with their side

>>33836951
The value of money on either side would not tank until it is clear that that side is going to lose the conflict

File: image.jpg (223KB, 774x1006px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 774x1006px

>>33836963
>>33836953
America has bombed their own citizens before. And no one said a peep about it nor complained since the news was effectively prevented from coming in the states. Meanwhile in the Commonwealth, the news covered it but no one did anything in retaliation.
Look up Jayuya and Utuado for a detailed account of what happened. If they can suppress connections from coming in and out before someone nigger rigs a form of communication or gather enough support from the people, (or have the media on their side) no one would respond back
>https://writetofight.wordpress.com/the-nationalist-insurrection-of-1950/

Its uh, blue vs red. It sounds stupid when you say it backwards.

>>33836973
>The only cause of a war would be if there was an entity like the US government trying to keep the two sides together.
Or, like literally every other war throughout human history, the driving force behind the conflict wasn't just pure idealogy and involved some kind of resource to take control of or economic issue that can't be solved without force

even the us civil war was like that, it wasn't over the right to be racist, it was over the north and south disputing what things constitute valid property, what things belong to who, and the sorts of fees and tariffs you'd have to pay to do stuff between states (or operate at all)

>>33836986
Not really, no. Now that the rural-based gun-owning white-majority rebel side has (superficially, at least) gained control of the government, it's going to be an even more one-sided affair. Because none of those graphs talk about a revolt by urban college students and nigger thugs.

>>33836951
>Import with what money? Value of the dollar would tank.
Why?

The US dollar would still be worth something in other countries, and those cities can still export stuff.

And it's not as though the two sides use different money. No matter who wins, the US dollar would remain their unit of currency.

Blues would win. Reds would be outnumbered and spread way too thin across way too much land

>>33837064
>muh economics
You can sorta twist this to reflect on whatever conflict you want, but the most common cause is really tensions between two or more rival ethnic groups. They're not fighting for taxes or tariffs or property, they're fighting for the survival and prosperity of their kin. Current thinking is that this should be framed within economics, but it's really the other way around - economics should be framed in the context of group and individual instinct and intent.

>>33837086
>Now that the rural-based gun-owning white-majority rebel side has (superficially, at least) gained control of the government,
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you actually believe this dont you, holy shit

m8 it's still the same big money and circles of jews that kept you down before, if anything, it's more explicit now

>>33837137
>the most common cause is really tensions between two or more rival ethnic groups.
And why is there that tension? because either the other ethnic group has stuff that your ethnic group wants, or your two ethnic groups have to share some limited resource that you'd want all to your one ethnic group.

>they're fighting for the survival and prosperity of their kin.
And what does it take to do that? Cheap resources, and ways to sell them easily for different resources you don't already have. Y'know,
>some kind of resource to take control of or economic issue that can't be solved without force

>>33837159
>kept you down
>implying I'm a burger
The ones being the aggressors and doing the rebelling now are the "other side". OP is asking about reds and blues, not the deep state agents. Either way, the military is now much more explicitely red than it was when it was the blues "in control" of the government.
>And what does it take to do that? Cheap resources, and ways to sell them easily for different resources you don't already have. Y'know,
Yes, it's about scarcity of resources. But random groups of people rarely coalesce for common economic gain, and more closely related individuals are less likely to resort to violence. You're trying to reduce something by ditching an important variable. Economics is a shitty meme that has overstayed its welcome, we should really be merging both it and natural selection/evolution under game theory.

>>33837216
>not the deep state agents.
then why is that nigga talking about "control of the government"

and if you're not a burger why are you using "red" and "blue" as if those mean anything at all consistent across countries

also are you seriously saying that all wars are race wars?

>>33836892
>New middle east
Give me free MG42s and endless RPGs and I'll do whatever you want.

>>33837216
I guess I may not be clear enough: I think economics has its place, but this stupid trend of generalizing it just obfuscates other areas. If you really want to, you can express just about anything from playing Chess to fighting an aerial dogfight, to winning an election, to surviving as a gene to economics - the fundamental problems are the same. But the theories of economics are a shitty tool for the modelling non-finance related issues. Sort of like how a dentist's drill is much like many machinist's tools yet they're not optimal replacements for each other.

>>33837276
Every other western terrorist group has used Stingers and FALs or G3s, why do you want shitty RPGs and naziboo jam machines?

>>33836702
I'd say not simply because he's not taking a side just asking for analysis.

>>33836916
There's no reason to be upset. You simply made a horrible post.
Take your shit thread to /pol/ where it belongs.

>>33837288
Hell throw those in too, some free AK74m's while you're at it.

>>33837267
>also are you seriously saying that all wars are race wars?
Are you literally incapable of arguing against anything but a strawman? I'm saying that ethnicity plays a role more often than not, and you're a retard if you deny this. Trailer park wiggers and suburban whites are more likely to form a coalition against the chicanos than a mixed bag even if you could make a financial case against it.

>>33836863
>The cities have all the ports though.
So what? You can deny access to the port in multiple ways. Make it so shipping companies won't go because they'll loose too much money trying too.

>And all the money.
Money doesn't mean much when there isn't much to buy.

>They could just import food. Also they have significantly more people.
Take a look at this map. This is arguably the most critical port in the US, both commercially and strategically speaking. All you need to do is destroy or damage I64 and I664 along with a few other bridges and you'll create absolute chaos, and because there is more people that means it is more difficult to control. Norfolk also has a bit of a problem with some of its more diverse neighborhoods which is another factor to look at. If you could somehow get past the navy, maybe there are a few defectors, and block shipping you would completely cripple the economy and cause a ripple effect for other places.

Just food for thought.

File: Screen Shot 2017-05-02 at 5.41.44 PM.png (338KB, 879x625px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 879x625px

>>33837316
Whoops forgot pic.

>>33836919
There are only 1.3 million people in the active military, and 800,000 in the reserves. And a significant amount would still stay blue.

The cities would conscript millions more soldiers from their much larger population bases and seize strategic objectives from the thinly-spread reds

>>33837276
>Mg42s
You mean MG3s

>>33837284
>aerial dogfight
Ironically, fighting an aerial dogfight used to be mostly about fuel consumption -- usually, the person who hit bingo first is the one that "loses" since they just gotta break off and go away, letting the victor do whatever they want in the area. Having to play tag with someone before attacking a bomber or ground target was less a matter of "I'm going to get shot" and more "I'm going to run out of fuel and ammo before getting to my objective"

It's less relevant now with larger tanks and more efficient engines and longer range more accurate guided weaponry, but "energy fighting" was a thing

> If you really want to, you can express just about anything from playing Chess to fighting an aerial dogfight, to winning an election, to surviving as a gene to economics
This isn't a treatise on milton fried's last book or some shit, I'm saying that when people fight over things, the things they fight over usually relate to literal physical things that they want, rather than just causal rasicm (or "ethnic pride" or whatever other buzzword you wanna use)

even the Nazis, they didn't band together because DA JOOS AHEV TRICK'D ME 4 THE LAST TIME, the party formed and people joined it because Germany was in shambles and people felt the country was picked on by other powers. Nationalism formed and became the cultural backing, but it was rooted in a very fundamental "We have no stuff; we want stuff; those people over there aren't letting us have stuff, so it looks like we gotta make our own stuff and take what stuff we can't make by force."

>>33837316
>hillbillies in the interior have access to ships that are powerful enough to blockade ports
>cities all literally have only one road to them
>roads, once destroyed, cannot be rebuilt

ok then

>>33837288
Considering that the M56 is the common machine gun parts kit in America, and that Wiselite makes receivers for them (Semi auto that is, until some gunsmith opens her up some more to fit full auto parts), I wouldn't be surprised if people are gonna loot 8mm or convert them to 7.62 NATO

>>33837316
>>33837326
what makes you think the reds would be able to stop the blues from just seizing that port, or that the blues couldn't just destroy the reds tiny naval blockades?

No one seems to mention the fact that the blues don't own guns, and the reds regularly train with guns.

>>33837398
>tisming out about calibers and market forces when there's pure sex in play
Look man. It needs to be FALs and G3s. It's an Aesthetic thing. You wouldn't understand.

>still using "reds" and "blues" like some kind of cops n robbers roleplay
jesus christ americans are autistic

>>33837407
there are tons of guns in cities

if cities don't have guns, why do you need a gun for self-defense when you go to the city?

>>33837411
Why not go full Germaboo and convert those M56s into MG3s while having G3s and G1sissued and wearing East German militaria for maximum ASTHETICS

>>33837407
there are plenty of guns in the cities too; both illegal ones and ones in armories

>>33837424
>mixing up your nazishit and your natoshit

please stop

>>33837429
Even still, those with guns in the cities are not as proficient as those in the country, or even have held one at all. And those that do have the most guns in cities are gonna be the ones that will turn a city into New Somalia.

>>33836689
You seriously think it'd be fighting state by state? It'd probably be neighbor to neighbor if you're doing this from a political viewpoint perspective. It won't be like the first civil war where lines are clearly drawn.

>>33837429
Yeah but the ownership density is worse

In cities, they're either one or two "owned" by the average gangbanger or a bunch in a police armory, with a few lawful (though cucked) owners mixed in. In rural areas, it's extremely common for the average homeowner to own 2+ guns

>>33837521
Even then, most guns in the city are going to be side arms, not rifles.

>>33837407
gun owners don't train. I realized the other day and i've been working myself into an advanced set of yeager-like rage.

anyway, you're about to find out why.

Americans do not "train." Few americans own weapons that are useful for combat. Fewer still do any type of practice at all. If a person "trains" you can basically depend upon their training consisting of going to the range.

At the range, they'll shoot a box or two at paper circles. The targets will be 7m away -- 25m maximum. This is FULLY INADEQUATE and does nothing to prepare you for anything.

You're going to say, "well, not all shooting is like that. What about 3-gun?" Maybe half of America owns guns. Maybe 1/4 of those people do any shooting at all. Out of those remaining, MAYBE 1/100 do 3-gun or some form of competition.

A shooter who does 3-gun will have a big advantage over the average target shooter, but he's still way behind the curve. Look at 3-gun for what it is: 1 man who memorizes a list of targets and runs quickly while shooting underpowered loads. There is a timer.

This is also fully inadequate and fails to qualify under any useful definition of training. The emphisis is all placed on speed+memorizing the order of targets. Neither of these skills transfer to any type of tactical application.

But, it's even a little worse than that. No matter how well you can 3-gun, you still can't move as a team. It's a solitary event, when combat is a social engagement.

You won't learn anything about communication or cover. You won't learn how to flank or resist suppression.

Basically, nobody trains. There are a few deer hunters who have developed skills that could be applied and there are returned vets who retain applicable skills. But, no civilians make honest effort to develop tactical relevance.

> So, if the "blues" made an actual effort to get dakka together, they would easily surpass everything the conservatives have -- because the reds ain't gat shit.

>>33837392
>underestimating hillbillies
>destroying major roadways does nothing
>tunnels and bridges are easy to fix

ok then

>>33837402
>what makes you think the reds would be able to stop the blues from just seizing that port, or that the blues couldn't just destroy the reds tiny naval blockades?
Who says that they have to prevent them from seizing it or use a naval blockade?

If you can make life a living hell to maintain it or do something to the infrastructure surrounding the port can effectively shut it down. There are rail lines and roads that lead to the port that can be sabotaged. Shutting off power and communication sources would also cause some chaos. Somalis in fishing boats managed to make a huge impact on international shipping just by harassing.

To get into the port of Norfolk you have to go through multiple choke points, starting at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. There are multiple opportunities for some guys to go out to raid or damage container ships faster than Somalis could ever dream of. Or just drop off some ghetto rigged mines. No shipping company in their right mind would willingly send ship in if there was high risk of loosing money.

>>33837573
continued:

here's a video. It's a few people with guns making an effort to learn combat skills.

If you aren't doing something kinda like this, you aren't really training. Maybe there were some americans doing this in the 1990's, but today, this behavior is extinct.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrs86ixxyIw

I'm not shilling for slovenians here: all i want is to criticize Americans for talking smak about red dawn fantasies and never doing nothing to learn how.

>>33837567
there are plenty of rifles in city armories and with law enforcement, and the cities could just import more guns through their ports

>>33837592
>>underestimating hillbillies
how the fuck are farmers from the interior going to go boating on the coasts

>>33837653
Fuck, cities could just import literally everything and be supreme in all respects, especially with the not starving to death part.

>>33837676
But what if the reds blow up all the cargo ships with their superior firepower?

>>33836892
this. i honestly think all this partisan shit need to be taken with a grain of salt. and both sides need to prioritize working shit out for everyday citizens.. but then again im a progun leftist that thinks antifa are a bunch of dunces.

>>33837700
The cities will just import more, plus hillbillies and rednecks don't have boats.

>>33837700
reds don't have "superior firepower"

they have heroin and ARs they don't really know how to use. Go ahead and die of despair

civil war will never happen in the US because americans are lazy and dumb

>>33837713
No, they have meth. Cities have heroin.

>>33837664
>how the fuck are farmers from the interior going to go boating on the coasts
Take a closer look at the map OP provided. Does it look like the East Coast is completely blue?

>>33837749
>taking a zod full of weapons from Bumblefuck New England all the way to NYC without being stopped by the coast guard
lmao ok

>>33836689
So I'll give you a quick rundown if this ends up being a civil war based around right vs left with no holds barred, assuming we use the government structure as the key issue. This also assumes full-scale agreements between sects on both sides, meaning AnCap to NatSoc and Antifa to Moderate have no internal conflicts.

Red/Repubs would consist largely of the lower class with more 'applicable' skills, meaning they have an easier time maintaining their areas at a base level and have more people that can be used for things like maintenance and the like. This group also owns a majority of the guns in the US, meaning they will never have issues of weapon scarcity. The current government would rally these people and would essentially end up being a Continental army 2.0, with a combination of militia and trained assets. Their goal is prevent blue/democrats from overwhelming strategic points, and essentially fight to preserve the government and country as it is.

Blue/democrats will be rallied behind leaders that stem from Antifa to current government figures, their goal is secure cities and push outwards to try and overturn the current government and become more liberal, or communist, depending on post-war information.

For the war itself, chances are rural areas will drive blues out if they are shown to be a danger to the community, however blue will likely lynch red in cities. Washington D.C. is lost to blue and the government moves.

Key battlegrounds mean basically all cities and their borders give or take 3-4 miles. California will be a major factor and if red can control the ports (or at least blockade them) foreign aid will be stifled.

The war would essentially be how quickly can the Red control major (current) Blue areas, or at least force them into a bad enough position Blue has to give up. Military elements will likely be employed by Red, however their footmen will likely be trained by enlisted, never using enlisted.

Game of speed, too many variables.

>>33837766
>ignoring the redneck riviera and the southern east coast
Alright dude.

Who would control the airfields and military bases? Because they would bring the air-superiority. The bases are usually not in urban areas, but the military forces who occupy them at the start of the war would likely be split in their support (maybe not 50/50, but it wouldn't 1st all be clear-cut). And what about the aircraft carriers on the high seas?

>>33837788
>Who would control the airfields and military bases?
probably the air force and military

>>33837791
I mean which side would those bases be on

>>33836689
Lessee - you have the part that produces all the food, water, and energy against the part that has a bunch of paper money they made by designing new iPhones.

Well, I guess the question is this: Do you think the blue states can last longer without food, water, and energy than red states can last without the next iPhone?

>>33837709
>The cities will just import more, plus hillbillies and rednecks don't have boats.
Look at an electoral map by county. How many red counties do you see along coastlines? If the answer isn't "zero", then your argument is shit.

>>33837801
> chilling and playing COD innabase
> antifa vs pol
> only a few shots fired
> media blows it up
> nobody really wants this fight
> war means no more tendies and free internet hentai
> everything blows over when kardashian kisses a gecko on insta

mfw i voted for johnson

>>33837783
Cities are a critical vulnerability. A few rednecks with ATVs can shoot down the transformers and bam, instantly blue side has to stop fighting and focus on not dying.

That's not counting cutting bridges, internodal warehouses, or other supply systems.

>maybe not 50/50

Probably 80 red/20 blue in the combat arms, more among the enlisted grunts.

>>33837801
Red, at least mostly. Some blue areas will control air force bases, but as long as the government influences the conflict on the side of the reds then they will still have "control" and will divert assets to protecting anything that could potentially be a major asset to blue.

>>33837835
This is something I wanted to mention but ran out of room for.

Red has a huge advantage because they have a large amount of infrastructure that can at least somewhat support each other independently, cities are a resource-suck and as such they're vulnerable to anything being cut off. That's why I called it a game of speed, since Blue needs to secure supply points to make sure they don't get forced into a position where they give up due to an inability to feed their members.

>>33836689
No one. Seriously, a civil war in the US would leave everyone fucked no matter who "won."

>>33837627
>no Americans train
I would disagree
https://youtu.be/27_43vqSomc
https://youtu.be/NLZL8wtuRmA
https://youtu.be/Bkl36MuTvTk
Granted I do agree with you that the majority of gun owners aren't utilizing this kind of training and would greatly benefit from it.

Having all the major gov't institutions within them, the blues would immediately establish themselves as the"real" United States to the international community, and would secure tons of foreign aid from all of America's left leaning allies

>>33837573
But they still know how to at least operate their guns where as the blues probably don't even know how to aim with one, or know what kind of ammo they need.

What about communications? Couldn't the blues cut off the reds internet access at the internet backbone points?

>>33837927
>while our troops are in their countries and Trump is in charge-controlled or not

They would do it in secret and we would respond in secret with JSOC strikes

>implying this is not already happening with the antifa commies out marching

File: beat those dirty blues.png (329KB, 511x743px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 511x743px

>>33836689
BEAT THOSE DIRTY BLUES

>>33838654
Damn shame they shit all over themselves as they got more popular.

>>33838770
Yeah but the first couple years were golden.

File: WRSz5bI.png (127KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 500x281px

>>33836872
Ironically, thanks to Nafta, American farmers export grain, especially corn, to Mexico. If nafta were to be negotiated it would hurt American farmers.
>>33836689
I would say the blue states.
>they control the ports
>they control most of the money (Cities tend to be wealthier).
>southern trade goes through Mexico which will likely ally itself with blue states.
>Red states might have more guns; however, as we have seen in Syria, Libya, the Ukraine, Crimea, the Balkans, and many other unstable countries, it is relatively easy for each side of the rebellion to be properly armed with outside help.
It really comes down to wether the us can become balkanized or if the U.S. constitution is strong enough to prevent that. Daily reminder that the constitution is the only thing that stands against a far-right fascist government or a far-left communist government.

>>33837927
Left the left have all the European cuck allies they want right now they can't deal with the damn muslims anyway. Plus from what was already said earlier the reds would have the support of Russia which means a hell of a lot more.

>>33838782
True that. Your pic has me firing up season 1 all over again.

>>33838770
MDB is great as is Camp Camp.

File: GotSargedcopy.jpg (191KB, 1023x725px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1023x725px

>>33838654

>>33838770
Yep. All went downhill after BGC.

So much wishful thinking in this thread, especially the "totally solved guise the revolution would be easy" bullshit here:
>>33836963
>>33836953

File: Me.jpg (539KB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

539KB, 2592x1944px

>>33838831
There aren't any American farmers left.
It's all corporations now.
My family's farm (where my grandfather and his father and his father were born) was auctioned in the late 2000's because there was nobody left to run it. My parents got an education and got the fuck out of there as soon as they could. The family farm is a long dead relic of the past in America.
Seriously, take a road trip to rural America and all you'll see is a old white people, a handful of younger whites who didn't escape, and a whole shitload of migrant pintos working for the agri-corps.

File: image.jpg (320KB, 1008x1100px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 1008x1100px

I'm fucking set, I already live like a depression era farmer with Internet and a DVD player, plus I live in New Zealand. Bring it the fuck on! Let the cityfags starve!

>>33837927
>implying they wouldn't be under martial law

>>33837573
>What is hunting and pest control?
>What are veterans?

>>33836892
Pretty much this, I imagine a couple of months of Middle East militias and Martial Law, then 10 years of the Great Depression 2.0

It won't matter, government vs people, city slicks vs rednecks, or even USA vs national power outage, the result is the same. Much higher casualties in the cites / blue areas simply because they don't grow food there. In the case of conflict, all the red would have to do is knock out their power, and they are dead.

File: clinton archipelago.jpg (118KB, 1600x952px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1600x952px

>>33842170
Here is a map of every precinct in the country that voted for Hillary.

Every one of them -- even the middling-almost-half ones -- are islands in a red ocean that import 100% of their power, food, and water through enemy territory.

Guess what happens when somebody goes all Fort Sumter and things get nasty.

>>33836689
>Antifa
>MAKE AMERICA RED!
>Show map.
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Like pottery.

>>33842170
Not just the Blues cant grow food, but they dont know how to store food without running electricity.

Pressure canning, smoke shacks, etc. They have no clue such things exists.

>>33840147
Maybe in your area. And shame on your family, BTW.

>>33837573
SO MUCH WRONG IN THIS POST.

>>33837102
How would the blues spread thin enough into red territory, the territory red has been hunting, hiking, mentally mapping for generations?

>>33837326
>>33837316

As a Newport News native who owns a boat, it would not be difficult to get up to either of the bridges ,(64,664, and the JRB), without much hassle and nobody would pay attention to a boat mulling around the pilings, and planting some sort of a large shaped charge that could flood the 64 and 664 tunnels would absolutely fuck the area in terms of commercial traffic since the only significant way up to I95 is across the water via 64. It would likely be more difficult to take out the JRB, but the daily commuter traffic increase from the destroyed tunnels would likely gridlock the area to a point that makes it nonviable commercially.

On top of that, it would be fairly easy to deny the area to shipping via remote/suicide rigged
explosive skiffs, It would not be difficult to procure and launch a somewhat overpowered 10-12 foot skiff with a 25 hp tiller outboard that can easily get close to cargo ships ,(speaking from experience here, you have not lived until you've jumped a 10ft wake from a freighter in a boston whaler), the area has a plentiful supply of such boats and pretty much all of the significant choke points are surrounded in marshes that they can be launched in.

I also find it funny that people think there are no hillbillys with boats, from my experience it's mostly the hilbilles that have a significant number of small fast trailerable boats which is exactly what you would need for such an attack, very few lefties in the area own boats.

>>33836863
Nigga I work produce in a grocery store. Literally the only things that are imported are the avocados and limes from Mexico, and the exotic fruit from the pacific armpit countries they come from. All the mainstays like potatoes, apples, lettuce, cabbage, tomatoes, carrots, corn, and dozens of other things are all grown here in the good ole' US-of-A. Have fun living off of avocados and mangoes, If you could even get your hands on any.

>>33837049
>What are smartphones?

You can't suppress news anymore. Now everyone and their mom has the capability to record an event and upload it to the internet. News stations use eye-witness recorded video all the time.

>>33842961
>>33842834
These annons are spot on and there is a choke point of I95, and most costal commuter and cargo rail all next to each other in the midatlantic region. Wouldn't matter what the Baltimore ports bring in NYC would starve.
>>33842266
Phil it does vary by region but the overwhelming majority of remaining family farms are on the east coast alobg with pockets in California on the west