Military Bases and the Choice of the Free State

Free State Project Forum

264423 Posts in 21119 Topics by 34812 Members / Latest Member: edwincfranklin

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 19, 2013, 08:42:36 pm

Join the FSP

POSTING GUIDELINES and ADVICE FOR NEW MEMBERS

In their deliberations, one thing that the membership may not have considered is the effect of the U.S. military's presence on the Project's probability of success. In Idaho, Montana, North and South Dakota, and Wyoming, the Air Force has multiple bases that are host to strategic bombers, ICBM's, and their supporting personnel and resources. This is the heart of America's land-based nuclear deterrent.

Let us suppose that one of these states is chosen, and that the Project succeeds. An FSP member is elected the governor, and that FSP members become a majority of both houses of the state legislature. The state informs the federal government that it wants to negotiate an appropriate degree of autonomy. How will the federal government react?

The Project can already count on its hostility. If the Project is successful enough, and the feds feel threatened enough, their attitude might become "these people might take control of our nuclear assets." Perception is what counts here. I leave the rest to your imagination.

Alaska has an important base or two (Elmendorf, among others), DE has Dover, Maine has Bangor (a civil airport, but also a KC-135 base). I don't know specifically about NH and VT. Outside of those two possible exceptions, they're all bad.

We'll have to negotiate how to address the U.S. military issue. The US has huge bases in many foreign countries, so this shouldn't be too complicated.

V-

I think this is a classic red herring - of course people have gone to war over this kind of thing before.

The fact is, that no matter what, a certain amount of hostility will come our way. My own opinion, is that this information could be used as an asset, rather as a detriment.

In the game of politics, DC could certainly start frothing at the mouth, and screaming about the nuclear & base issues. The noble leaders of the Free State can then dissolve the issue completely by saying: "You can keep them. By all means, take the damn things out of here! We'll even pay for your fuel, as long as you can assure us that you will not point them at us!" Show Washington for what it is: power mad wackos.

Or something to that effect.

If you think about it, really, the real antagonism will be the fact that we'll be thumbing our collective [sic] noses at the Federales, and they will feel threatened. They'll worry about what kind of "message" we'll be sending to the other states (who will be in continually spiraling economic downdrafts). Or the "message" that those ubiquitous terrorists will see.

We'll be compared to Chechnya, and we'll be called "terrorists" at worst, or "ungrateful ingrates" at best. Or perhaps "unpatriotic" for not "supporting" DC and company.

None of that matters. They know it, too. They know the real issue is power: economic and political power. They will not relinquish it easily. But if we keep smiling, and "caving" on the "nuclear" issue, and other red herrings that are truly free of charge. We'll be able to stand firm on the really important issues of autonomy, taxation, and 9th & 10th amendment issues. (Not to mention Article I issues)

And we won't need to utter the "s" word for a few more years, yet.

'nuff said.

Eddie

There's been talk in the past of shutting down the military base in Cheyenne as part of the general scale-down that's been going on over the last few years. It probably won't happen for awhile now, but if the Democrats win the White House and/or Congress, it likely will.

Outside of their military roles though, I actually believe that military personnel might make some of the best citizens for a free state. They're generally self-disciplined, hard-working, and principled. These are not the type of people that make good welfare candidates; they're better poised to contribute to society rather than to drain it.

Quote from: RobertH on July 02, 2003, 12:06:40 am

Some of us are in the military

Lots of us are retired military (or once served).

NH does have a base, VT does not. However, last time I was in VT there was a base in NY, across the big lake.

WY only has 1 base.

It would not be strange to have a military base of many (as in AK) in the Free State. Over 100 countries have US military bases and it is no big deal. In fact, the US pays many of those counties (some in the billions) to keep those bases.

The federal government could care less.

This issue is now dead :0)

NOTICE: The forum will be down for maintenance beginning at 7PM (NH time) this evening. It should be up again by 9PM. Please forgive the inconvenience and feel free to e-mail arick@freestateproject.org if you have any questions or support requests.