What are your predictions if the US had another Civil War?

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: pikestaff
Two low power low yield nukes will quieten down the populace when they get a bit frisky, people will soon remember Japan.

The US would never nuke it's own citizens, the nukes would however act as an effective deterrent to prevent Russia, China, and others from taking parts of the US in the chaos.

If the US government did nuke its own, it would do a few things.

It might end the immediate rebellion, but it would ensure that the government pretty much loses the idea of legitimate rule by consent. I can't think of any populace that would consent to be ruled by a government that would nuke them. The only way such a thing would ever work is if the rebels had gone so far beyond the pale at that point that the remaining populace no longer considered them fellow citizens in any way and they had become entirely "Other." Given media tactics and the ability of the government to control the narrative for their loyal populace, this might just become possible.

It would also signal the end of the US in any way that the world ever knew it. A government that would nuke its own, even its rebellious own, is a tyranny. There is no way around that.

a reply to: ketsuko

I think it would do something else too, you have to consider that if the military becomes divided that both sides would have access to some nuclear weapons. It could result in both sides nuking each other. Additionally it could result in the rest of the world responding to whoever used nukes and cutting trade, sanctions, potential invasion... lots of bad consequences. I just don't see it happening.

a reply to: Aazadan

If there were a mass secession scenario, the nukes might ensure a cold war rather than a hot Civil War. THink about how many missile silos there are in the Midwest. If you had a large swath of the Midwest from Texas up to Canada defect together, how keen would the rest of the country be to push it?

This was why they they were so keen to disarm the Ukraine after it broke off form the collapsing USSR. It was feared that recurring tensions between Ukraine and Russia might lead to a regional nuclear exchange between the two, so the west got Ukraine to give up its arsenal in exchange for assurances that we would defend them if Russia ever tried anything ... Oops!

Still, there could be a similar situation between the East/West Coast and the Midwest and the nukes.

Pretty accurate here:www.bob-owens.com...

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
Pretty accurate here:www.bob-owens.com...

So from your link, I assume you think it would go down with a division purely along gun control stances? I realize some people really like their guns but wars generally come about for economic reasons and guns don't have much to do with the economy.

a reply to: ketsuko

Nukes could prevent overt actions but what if the sides strike at each other with economics, roadside bombs, and so on? More along the idea of terrorist actions rather than military maneuvers? The nukes wouldn't fly in that case (especially with small groups among large numbers of civilians) but the fighting would still happen.

a reply to: Aazadan

Economics yes. That's a cold war tactic, but something like open roadside bombs would be pretty risky. Think about how the US and Russia dealt with one another, or how India and Pakistan do it now. You might get sabotage through proxy with each side trying to undermine via stealth enabling of criminal gangs, but any overt activity or activity that can be linked back is grounds for more massive retaliation.

Neither side is going to want to risk the other's nukes just as neither is really going to want to nuke because the fallout will damage them too. There will be limits to the open provocation and the amount of risk each side will take.

I wonder if people would tend to geographically migrate away from states like Tennessee that would be near the borders of conflict?
To be honest I think the old school military complex would have a hard time adapting to a domestic theater war.

Who would profit from such a war?

Define many?

The US is so fragmented right now. We don't have two sides - we have countless sides. There are sub-factions within factions fighting with each other. And then there are those not participating in red versus blue at all - even those people are fighting with each other.

There will be no civil war version 2 (at least not in the way that people seem to think on this website) - just a LOT of noise for another generation or two and back and forth 'us' versus 'them' politics profiting off of it while certain people lose their minds because they're afraid that the world isn't spinning backwards because they lack the ability to cope with a complex universe.

Hardly any two Americans can cooperate long enough to find their way out of a wet paper bag - that doesn't lead to civil war. It leads to rich religious institutions, rich politicians, and a completely mad general populace ripe for continuous fleecing.

I think a lot of humans are just irrationally afraid of complexity and how the digital age has forced them to realize that things change because that's just the way it is with the whole 'time' thing.

My opinion of course (one of seven plus billion).

Dont need a war!
but you do need Most of the states becoming countries.

most will just thing they can separate and go it alone.
but then they will get taken one by one.

guerilla war fair is what they need.
learn from what has been don to others.

a reply to: ketsuko
The arguments for such would need to be sound. And it would have to appeal to the majority of the people in those areas. If it neither appeals or has the support, or loses support, it would end up being a loss on the side that started such.

if it is for just one issue where the feelings are neutral, or there is no clear cut idea that everyone can agree on, it will go no where. And ultimately, right now there are way too many ideas on what all is wrong, and too many old hurts that keep getting opened up. The people are dividing in a bad way, and that would not be a good thing. And so far with the people divided like this, I would not worry about such yet. It is when the people start agreeing on the issues and there is no resolution that we should worry.

Many of the social issues that are out there, the government does not solve, as it means that the public would look at what all is really going on.

originally posted by: paraphi
Judging by what is seen going on in the USA and the inability to resolve the race problems, I would see a civil war between the black and whites.

The result would be the black being collected into ghettos, although I think this has already largely happened.

Other than that the US is not going to have a civil war. Oh, I know people who live there complain, but they really need to travel abroad to see that the US - while flawed - is not really that bad.

Do you seriously think America could 'round up' 40 million African Americans? If you think this is a possibility you have been duped into the "America hates Blacks" nonsense. Any act of rounding up a specific race in this country would send it over the edge. The sheer number is nearly impossible as is (That is 2/3 the population of all of England), but it would send every person who is truly not racist over the edge, the majority of the country.

Now that that is out of the way. I see any sort of "civil war" that breaks out being a highly irregular conflict, probably not even with the actual armed forces. I think the only conflicts that would occur would be between militia groups and domestic departments under the President. Think DHS, FBI, DEA. That is where the conflict would occur. I am a firm believer that America will never have a traditional internal war, it's simply not feasible. The military leadership would disobey orders from the Pres to use lethal force and military doctrine as a rule against the civilian population (and I don't mean the national guard augmenting local police in case of a riot like Ferguson and Baltimore). Even military members below the leadership level (I'm talking SNCO and below) would disobey orders. No Marine I know would participate in a military operation against civilians.

Again, I think the only conflict we could have would be militia groups that fight against Domestic 'Law Enforcement" like the DEA, FBI, DHS, EPA, etc. No one would be taking over cities and launching airstrikes or rolling armor.


EDIT: The outcome of such a 'conflict'? Probably Congress ending up making a deal to appease the militant groups to prevent further bloodshed.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Aazadan

If there were a mass secession scenario, the nukes might ensure a cold war rather than a hot Civil War. THink about how many missile silos there are in the Midwest. If you had a large swath of the Midwest from Texas up to Canada defect together, how keen would the rest of the country be to push it?

This was why they they were so keen to disarm the Ukraine after it broke off form the collapsing USSR. It was feared that recurring tensions between Ukraine and Russia might lead to a regional nuclear exchange between the two, so the west got Ukraine to give up its arsenal in exchange for assurances that we would defend them if Russia ever tried anything ... Oops!

Still, there could be a similar situation between the East/West Coast and the Midwest and the nukes.

Doubt you could seize those silios before the US military disabled them.

If they are like the ones in Europe they have special kill procedures in case a area is over run (ie the russians) as no one wants a nuke turned on you.

a reply to: Aazadan

The strategy is appliccable regardless of the trigger scenario so actually no I don't see that as a possiblity.
I just used the article to illustrate what would happen.

The military would take over the government before things got totally out of hand. It almost happened when Nixon was being forced to leave office but one branch of the military said no.

Look at many countries where descent got out of hand. Military steps in cracks some heads and arrest the few token bureaucrats .... Egypt and Thailand are a few recent examples. In both cases without military intervention the countries would have descended into anarchy..

Thailand is certainly better and more prosperous ..... they are saying free elections will be held in a year or two. I dunno about Egypt other than several of the Muslim brotherhood will meet their 72 virgins sometime this year.. I hope the are all prepared for a hereafter disappointment; second thought naw let it be a surprise...

originally posted by: Aazadan

My predication is that for this to happen, food would have to be gone, Xbox and PlayStation would have to fail, American youth would have to be taught how to navigate the steps up out of their parents basements. Then you might see a civil war.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Doubt you could seize those silios before the US military disabled them.

If they are like the ones in Europe they have special kill procedures in case a area is over run (ie the russians) as no one wants a nuke turned on you.

A civil war would likely involve some portion of the military defecting. It's not entirely unreasonable to believe that a few nuclear bases would defect.

I'm sure there are safeguards in place to prevent the missiles from being launched, but if you have access to the base nothing says you can't send technicians into the missile and remove the warhead to repurpose elsewhere.

The way I see a civil war going down, if it were to go down in the immediate future would be this:

1st- use the police force to target minorities and kill them for any reason. CHECK

2nd - use the forced economic collapse and housing cost vs stagnant wages and unemployment to break down the next layer of the population that are getting by, paycheck to paycheck (as per the norm) CHECK

3rd- Increase the amount of laws that can now be broken and couple these with the fringe, barely getting by lifestyle that many are forced into due to economic collapse and the shifting of jobs to cheaper labor. CHECK

4th- Make un paid and delinquent payment towards debt a crime as well.

5th- "Normal" citizens on their way between jobs and schools and daycares, etc, are harassed by militarized police. Many are hauled away for various crimes that most knew nothing about. Families are torn apart and everyone is a target. Except for the super rich, who have moved into areas that cater to their money and lifestyle, These areas remain unaffected for the most part throughout this lead up to a civil war and throughout the war itself. Walled-in counties in Connecticut, etc.

6th- Average citizens who normally follow the law are now seriously considering rebellion.

7th- Something "tips the iceberg" and the s*** takes off with a bang.

Everyone, regardless of race will be against "the man".
Foreign troops will be brought in to reinforce our own.
Other countries will have similar problems and our troops will go there to fight while their trips will come over here to fight- us.

i'm certain the outcome would result in the complete annihilation of ALL foreign interests in the Americas.

for example...consider all the 'debt' or 'equity' interests people who aren't Americans think they hold...all that would be wiped away in minutes.

no rights for anyone who isn't a natural born person or married to one. and diminished rights for anyone claiming a religion with its Capital in a foreign land.

a jack move for the ages.

for those not familiar with what its like to have everything taken from them...let Ice Cube entertain you...

a reply to: cavtrooper7

I'm of the opinion that well see an urban poor versus the rural areas if the gravy-train of free food, utilities and housing were interrupted for even a monent.

Just look at the nonsense that took place for a chance for a housing voucher: youtu.be...

What do you think would of happened if a computer glicth that prevented food stamp money from being deposited had taken longer than 48 hours to be corrected?
youtu.be...

Chaos. Looting. Fires. Rape. Robbery. Shootings at frequent intervals. Every single first world nation is literally held hostage by a small segment of the population that is gorging on the tit of free federal dollars. If that system has the slightest hiccup # goes sideways in a hurry. Imagine if it were to be interrupted for any significant length of time.

I know, the auto-response is, "Well what about corporate welfare?", which I detest equally. But somethong tells me that if the tax code was tightened up and corporations like GE were suddenly on the hook for more taxes the shareholders wouldn't go loot and burn the local KFC and Nike outlet.

Anyways, here is the most realistic scenario I've come across:

westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com...