Secession: Tempting, but...

I've been toying with the idea, but something about it bothered me.  Not that I wouldn't like the opportunity to de-liberalize America, but I just kept getting this nagging feeling I was overlooking something.

I was.  Ann just pointed it out.  (Well, she pointed it out last year, but I must have missed that one.)

Secession? Nope. It's all-or-nothing.

Posted by Ann Barnhardt - June 10, AD 2011 8:49 AM MST

(Originally posted June 23, AD 2010)  
I have received many emails and have heard much talk about the U.S. breaking into two countries - one Constitutional Republic built on a foundation of Judeo-Christian principles consisting of the Mountain, Central and Southern states (essentially a continuation of the original United States of America), and a Marxist-Socialist-Atheist confederation consisting of the Pacific Coast states, the Upper Midwest (IL, MI, WI) and the New England states.
 
While it is sorely tempting to think about drop-kicking the liberal states and going our seperate ways, the reality is that this would be a MASSIVE mistake, and would almost certainly set in motion a chain of events that would end Western Civilization.
 
If this sort of "divorce" were to happen, we all know that the New U.S. (NUS) would thrive while the Marxist Confederation (MC) would quickly fail catastophically. When that failure happened, the MC would come begging to the NUS to bail it out. Now, you might be thinking, "Screw 'em. They made their bed, now they can sleep in it. They'll get no help from us." That's a knee-jerk reaction, and it would be the WRONG reaction. Why? Because if the NUS turned down the MC's requests for help, who would be the ONLY other nation capable of bailing out the MC? China. And as we should all understand with crystal clarity, the liberals in the MC states would be, without question, idiotic enough to actually INVITE the Chinese to take over their economy, and eventually their land - purely as a "peacekeeping force" to control the food shortage riots, you understand. So, in order to stave off Chinese involvement in North America, we would have to bail the MC out anyway. It's a textbook "damned if you do, damned if you don't".
 
In the event of a divorce wherein the NUS didn't prop up the MC, the ports of San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland and Seattle would be completely vulnerable, and eventually would be thrown wide open to a cold invasion. The same could also be said for the East Coast ports. Boston, New York and Washington D.C. would be vulnerable and/or invite a "peacekeeping force" from the U.N., probably led by Russia. Now we need to talk military tactics. Assume that what I have just laid out actually came to pass. The NUS and Constitutionalist refugees from the MC states are now compressed into the geographic center of the continent. To the west lies the Chinese Army. To the east lies the UN/Russian army.
 
This is called a "Strategic Flanking". In fact, this would be the largest strategic flanking in world history. To be "flanked" is very, very bad. If you are fighting any sort of battle, you want to keep your adversary in front of you at all times and your sides CLEAR. You must NEVER allow the adversary to move along your sides (flanks). Combat tacticians are CONSTANTLY looking for a way to move their troops in such a way so that they "gain the flanks". Once a force loses its flanks, it becomes nearly impossible (without a massive advantage in weaponry) to escape. The most famous tactical flanking in history was executed by Hannibal at the Battle of Cannae in 216 BC. With fewer than 40,000 men, Hannibal drew the Roman army of 90,000 men into his center, and then wrapped around their flanks on both sides, thus forming a semi-circle around the Romans. By doing this, Hannibal was able to COMPLETELY DESTROY the Roman army with fewer than HALF the number of men.
 
The most famous strategic flanking to date is probably the flanking of Nazi Germany by the Soviet army to the east and the Allies to the west. While this involved the entire European continent, the flanking I describe above on the North American continent would dwarf the Nazi flanking in size and scope. It is not hard to imagine a massive Chinese force pushing and compressing the NUS from the west, eventually wrapping around the northern flank, with a UN/Russian force compressing from New England in a southwesterly direction, pushing the people of the NUS south towards the Gulf of Mexico, and utter defeat.
 
Given these obvious tactical realities, I hope that one and all now see that the UNION MUST BE PRESERVED. The United States of America MUST remain intact from "sea to shining sea". It is all-or-nothing for us. Amicable divorce is NOT an option. We can not allow Marxism to establish any quarter, even in the spirit of "compromise" and the avoidance of possible hostilities, because that "compromise" and "avoidance" would be to sign our own death warrants, and the death warrant of Western Civilization. It would be far better to fight a war of national preservation than to fight a war against a conquering Sino-Russian invasion.
 
How sick is it that I have to post this crap? I'm a 34 year old single woman. I should be planning my next business move, or thinking about recreational travel. Instead, I'm standing here, mid-morning on a Friday, writing essays on secession dynamics and military tactics for the North American theater. This is the living, breathing definition of FUBAR. God save us.

I beg to differ with her final paragraph.  With courage and intellect like hers on our side, things are a lot less FUBAR than they might appear.