Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
PipHelix
Nov 11, 2017



Rah! posted:

i could have sworn i read up on state defense forces several years ago and got the impression they were a complete joke, but I guess some of them are more than 5 fat guys that stand around once per year lol. But they are small, and do look like they have a lot of old farts among the ranks.

Entryism time! How many CA goons can see their toes and dog-jog a mile? That seems to be the cutoff for Basic nowaday.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Peanut President
Nov 5, 2008

by Athanatos
Cali having a state militia proves they're fascists

etalian
Mar 20, 2006

California and Texas have the top two national guards in terms of overall size (18,000 / 21,000)

https://www.wearethemighty.com/military-culture/states-largest-national-guard-units

Rah!
Feb 21, 2006


etalian posted:

California and Texas have the top two national guards in terms of overall size (18,000 / 21,000)

https://www.wearethemighty.com/military-culture/states-largest-national-guard-units

state defense forces are similar to the national guard, but are only under the command of the governor (but members can still be drafted into the normal military :smugdon:). They're really small though, and only some states have them, and even fewer of them train them for combat stuff.

Texas has around 2,000, and CA has around 1,000. Texas apparently doesn't do weapons training though :sad:

etalian
Mar 20, 2006

Rah! posted:

state defense forces are similar to the national guard, but are only under the command of the governor (but members can still be drafted into the normal military :smugdon:). They're really small though, and only some states have them, and even fewer of them train them for combat stuff.

Texas has around 2,000, and CA has around 1,000. Texas apparently doesn't do weapons training though :sad:

lol

https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/these-state-defense-force-not-under-the-control-of-the-commander-in-chief

quote:

Before rushing to join your state's SDF, be advised there are a lot of controversies surrounding SDFs. In the late 1980's, the governor of Utah had to fire 31 officers for creating an SDF full of neo-nazis, mental patients, and felons. After September 11, 2001, Alaska disbanded its SDF because their lack of actual military training was more of a liability. New York's SDF was full of Generals who have never had any military training, they were appointed by the governor as a reward for support. Some SDFs have no fitness or weight standards (California) while others are highly restrictive (Tennessee requires its SDF members be honorably discharged from the U.S. military).

State Defense Forces have assisted in many disaster-related capacities, however. They augmented forces in support of Hurricane Katrina relief, especially in states surrounding Louisiana, to assist with the expected influx of refugees. In Texas, the SDF responds to local emergencies (like flash floods) that aren't declared disaster areas but need help anyway. They provide security augmentees for regular military forces and provide emergency medical training to National Guard units and other areas of the U.S. military.

Rah!
Feb 21, 2006


Peanut President posted:

Cali having a state militia proves they're fascists

they even have their own military police lmao

Rah!
Feb 21, 2006



:heritage:

BIG HORNY COW
Apr 11, 2003
AK SDF has a navy and an airforce via the CAP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Naval_Militia

The SDF here actually does stuff like helping with search and rescue.

PawParole
Nov 16, 2019

Rah! posted:

they even have their own military police lmao

can’t wait to be shot by the Cali Commisar because they found a Whataburger coupon in military issued swim trunks

Orvin
Sep 9, 2006




DrSunshine posted:

"No!! You can't just give vote by mail to every single person!! That'll just make it easier to vote for the people I hate Noooooooooooo!!"

Is this when the Republicans finally complete their plan to force the collapse of the Postal Service? Can’t vote by mail if there is no mail service.

Rah!
Feb 21, 2006


PipHelix posted:

Entryism time! How many CA goons can see their toes and dog-jog a mile? That seems to be the cutoff for Basic nowaday.

lowly federal troops will have rascal scooters

the gavin defense force will be equipped with a range of tesla cyber scooters and child-sized submersibles

as a bonus, CA can use the firefighting experience gained to help control future wildfires caused by the tesla factories

Peanut President
Nov 5, 2008

by Athanatos

Orvin posted:

Is this when the Republicans finally complete their plan to force the collapse of the Postal Service? Can’t vote by mail if there is no mail service.

iirc the post office is a requirement by the constitution

Real hurthling!
Sep 11, 2001




they can make it useless and have all the mail thats profitable to deliver, be delivered by fedex and all the mail thats not profitable to deliver be burnt

Rah!
Feb 21, 2006


gavins private army is already spreading the ravenous bear's influence :skeltal:

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

ArmedZombie
Jun 6, 2004

Rah! posted:

gavins private army is already spreading the ravenous bear's influence :skeltal:

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

KKKalifornia Über Alles

Peanut President
Nov 5, 2008

by Athanatos

Real hurthling! posted:

they can make it useless and have all the mail thats profitable to deliver, be delivered by fedex and all the mail thats not profitable to deliver be burnt

thats fair

Thump!
Nov 25, 2007

Look, fat, here's the fact, Kulak!



Peanut President posted:

iirc the post office is a requirement by the constitution

ah yes, something the republicans care strongly about, constitutionality

Kenning
Jan 11, 2009

I really want to post goatse. Instead I only have these🍄.



Whenever a great empire falls later historians provide a range of dates for "When The Empire Fell" and the earliest "acceptable" historical dates are always at least a generation or two before the citizens of that empire would have agreed that it had fallen.

Guess where we are.

etalian
Mar 20, 2006

Rah! posted:

they even have their own military police lmao

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/49th_Military_Police_Brigade_(United_States)

:vince:

Car Hater
May 7, 2007

wolf. bike.
Wolf. Bike.
Wolf! Bike!
WolfBike!
WolfBike!
ARROOOOOO!

Kenning posted:

Whenever a great empire falls later historians provide a range of dates for "When The Empire Fell" and the earliest "acceptable" historical dates are always at least a generation or two before the citizens of that empire would have agreed that it had fallen.

Guess where we are.

It was Vietnam

etalian
Mar 20, 2006

Car Hater posted:

It was Vietnam

I would argue

economically

90s

-Last wave of robber baron deregulation under Slick Willy that allowed the FIRE sector to explore even more high risk investments (Derivatives / CDOs) and
also allowed them to co-mingle investment banking (Glass Steagal )
-Tech stock casino eventually led to the current contract/gig economy work such as Uber

Military/Politically 2000s
-9/11 which led to multiple US costly defeats in both Iraq and Afghanistan despite spending trillions of dollars
-Trumpy managed to destabilize the Cold War level agreements with his bull in the china shop behavior
-Alt right ideas given mainstream power in the US after Trump's 2016 general election victory
-For the topic this thread, Trump/GOP saying states should have to work through the CV crisis without any federal help and even mentioned muni level bankruptcy as a solution since no additional Federal aid will be provided

Dawncloack
Nov 26, 2007
ECKS DEE!
Nap Ghost
Not an American, but it is loving wild to know that the entire world order, the only one you've ever known, is past the cliff edge and just hasn't looked down.

ClassActionFursuit
Mar 15, 2006

etalian posted:

I would argue

economically

90s

-Last wave of robber baron deregulation under Slick Willy that allowed the FIRE sector to explore even more high risk investments (Derivatives / CDOs) and
also allowed them to co-mingle investment banking (Glass Steagal )
-Tech stock casino eventually led to the current contract/gig economy work such as Uber

Military/Politically 2000s
-9/11 which led to multiple US costly defeats in both Iraq and Afghanistan despite spending trillions of dollars
-Trumpy managed to destabilize the Cold War level agreements with his bull in the china shop behavior
-Alt right ideas given mainstream power in the US after Trump's 2016 general election victory
-For the topic this thread, Trump/GOP saying states should have to work through the CV crisis without any federal help and even mentioned muni level bankruptcy as a solution since no additional Federal aid will be provided

I'd agree with this. The 90s loaded the gun, 9/11 pulled the trigger.

You've got to figure that by the 2008 recession and its aftermath that the world had ample proof that the US military was completely ineffectual, the US economy is mostly illusory, and the US government was absolutely incapable of addressing any of its internal problems.

Barring a future catastrophic "this is it" event, 9/11 will likely be seen by future historians as the inflection point where the decline became inevitable.

etalian
Mar 20, 2006

LastInLine posted:

I'd agree with this. The 90s loaded the gun, 9/11 pulled the trigger.

You've got to figure that by the 2008 recession and its aftermath that the world had ample proof that the US military was completely ineffectual, the US economy is mostly illusory, and the US government was absolutely incapable of addressing any of its internal problems.

Barring a future catastrophic "this is it" event, 9/11 will likely be seen by future historians as the inflection point where the decline became inevitable.

I'd also argue that getting two massive Global level FIRE sector implosions (2008/2020) within a short time period shows how the rapid deregulation of the US economy and transition to contract/gig economy work is making the roller coaster crashing even more pronounced.

Probably the smug height of the US global empire was was the Soviet Union collapse and the US could claim that "their" system was better.

etalian has issued a correction as of 14:52 on Apr 25, 2020

euphronius
Feb 18, 2009

it was the voting rights act in 1965 (which finally ended the civil war 100 years after it started) which lead to realignment and coupling white supremacy with capital (again I guess). this killed FDRs new deal coalition (which wasn’t great anyway) and extinguished any last hope of a good future

soon after that the USA had Nixon and its been downhill since

Beowulfs_Ghost
Nov 6, 2009

Car Hater posted:

It was Vietnam

That was definitely the plateau point. For a Roman comparison, it was like building Hadrians wall. The point were the US had to admit that its empire had reached a physical limit, and had to accept that some regions would just be outside the empire.

Nixon ending Bretton Woods shortly afterwards was the classic open secrect debasing the currency event. The oil embargoes further showed the US had reached a limit.

Both are more of a peaked empire sort of thing but not necessarily declining. The US was still in dominant position and could have held it for a long time.


Historians probably will latch on the 9/11 as day 1 of the decline, because there really hasn't been any gains, or wins, or stability ever since.

Beowulfs_Ghost has issued a correction as of 16:40 on Apr 25, 2020

Atrocious Joe
Sep 2, 2011

People latch onto the Roman Empire comparisons, but other (early) modern European empires seem more applicable? Like, the Dutch, Spanish, French, and British empires are all more recent examples of a state achieving global hegemony (outside of China?) for a few decades before entering a long period of decline. With those examples you actually have various degrees of capitalist development as well.

In this comparison, the US just seems to be the latest in a succession of dominant European powers. Probably the last too, as the European power is actually a settler state.

chairface
Oct 28, 2007

No matter what you believe, I don't believe in you.

Lol the British empire at peak absolutely extended their hegemony into China. Opium Wars, Unequal Treaties, outright taking Hong Kong...

etalian
Mar 20, 2006

Beowulfs_Ghost posted:

That was definitely the plateau point. For a Roman comparison, it was like building Hadrians wall. The point were the US had to admit that its empire had reached a physical limit, and had to accept that some regions would just be outside the empire.

Nixon ending Bretton Woods shortly afterwards was the classic open secrect debasing the currency event. The oil embargoes further showed the US had reached a limit.

Both are more of a peaked empire sort of thing but not necessarily declining. The US was still in dominant position and could have held it for a long time.


Historians probably will latch on the 9/11 as day 1 of the decline, because there really hasn't been any gains, or wins, or stability ever since.

Plus the US especially with Trump becomes a political laughing stock in which loud blustering ,saber rattling and threats get laughed off by rival superpowers.

The US was also forced to sign a cease fire and peace treaty with Taliban in Afghanistan after sinking trillions of dollars into failed nation military building / military actions since 2001.

vyelkin
Jan 2, 2011

Atrocious Joe posted:

People latch onto the Roman Empire comparisons, but other (early) modern European empires seem more applicable? Like, the Dutch, Spanish, French, and British empires are all more recent examples of a state achieving global hegemony (outside of China?) for a few decades before entering a long period of decline. With those examples you actually have various degrees of capitalist development as well.

In this comparison, the US just seems to be the latest in a succession of dominant European powers. Probably the last too, as the European power is actually a settler state.

There's an even more recent comparison of a giant superpower reaching the end of its ideological and economic rope and splitting into like 15 different countries, and coincidentally it also came after that country's military was bled dry fighting in Afghanistan for a decade.

Phi230
Feb 2, 2016

by Fluffdaddy
I don't think the breakup of the USSR or Yugo are good comparisons to make. If anything I like Robert Evan's thesis that the Syrian Civil War is a better model.

Real hurthling!
Sep 11, 2001




delian league. you got your nato/imf analogues, your plagues, your exhaustive wars.

Phi230
Feb 2, 2016

by Fluffdaddy
Also It Can Happen Here should be like required listening for the thread, though some parts of it suck

Mantis42
Jul 26, 2010

Naw the last generation will be viewed as our Crisis of the 3rd Century, where the empire SHOULD have fallen, but survived and renewed itself through the deft handling of Aurelian/Trump making things Great Again.

Tulip
Jun 3, 2008

yeah thats pretty good


Britain is an interesting way of looking at things because they basically went from "low tier regional to global hegemon back to low tier regional" in under 200 years, and for a decent chunk of that their position as superpower was continuously rotting - while the deathblow came in 1947, the British ability to profitably exploit their colonies was pretty hosed before WW1 e.g. Morley-Minto was an act of managed decline.

(by contrast, Rome 1) had actual revivals after declines, while Britain basically just went up and then down and 2) Rome spent longer collapsing that expanding and 3) it's honestly really debatable when Rome "stopped" mattering, and even the short version is like 1000 years).

If we're viewing the US through the Britain lens, we'd be looking at when its necolonial enterprises lost efficiency to the extent that they weren't growing US power. 1982 is Mexico's sovereign default, which has caused rippling and continuous crises in the main mechanisms of neocolonialism (foreign finance manipulation, mostly). Most of the cost of this fell on Latin America - which is similar to how most of the cost of the UK's decline fell on its colonies, so that as a start point makes a certain amount of sense to me.

Atrocious Joe
Sep 2, 2011

chairface posted:

Lol the British empire at peak absolutely extended their hegemony into China. Opium Wars, Unequal Treaties, outright taking Hong Kong...

Oh yeah, you're right about the British. I was more hesitant to say the Dutch or Spanish extended their hegemony that far.

Byzantine
Sep 1, 2007

Also the Roman Empire didn't fall from political squabbling, economic trouble or even plague, it was slowly beaten to death by barbarian invasions over a thousand years.

Peanut President
Nov 5, 2008

by Athanatos
I don't want a managed decline into a regional backwater like Britain or France I want a supernova of collapse like the USSR

ClassActionFursuit
Mar 15, 2006

Byzantine posted:

Also the Roman Empire didn't fall from political squabbling, economic trouble or even plague, it was slowly beaten to death by barbarian invasions over a thousand years.

Epic username/post combo

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Atrocious Joe
Sep 2, 2011

decolonization for UK only looks less dramatic than the fall of the USSR if you're only paying attention to the British islands.

like, the partition of India by itself was a mass death event

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply