What Might Civil War Be Like?

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3
Points
430
https://army.ca/forums/threads/125056/post-1513680.html#msg1513680

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/12/what_might_civil_war_be_like.html

December 20, 2017
What Might Civil War Be Like?
By E.M. Cadwaladr
The thought of Civil War has been in the minds of many people lately, on both sides of the political and cultural divide. This is not a thing to be wished for, though no one should kid themselves into believing it’s impossible either. Let us take a sober look at what such a conflict might entail.

To begin with, it would not look like the first American Civil War, which was essentially a war between two regions of the country with different economic interests. The divide created two separate countries, both initially contiguous, intact, and relatively homogeneous. The lines of demarcation now are only somewhat regional, and tend to correspond to differences between urban and rural populations, as well as differences of race and class. A second American Civil War would be much more similar to the Spanish Civil War, with the leftists dominating the cities and conservatives controlling the countryside. Conflicts of this nature, with enemies mixed geographically, are a formula for spontaneous mass bloodletting. India-Pakistan during the 1947 partition comes to mind as another modern example. Given an absence of legitimate government and the friction of proximity, ordinary people can be moved to settle grievances by killing one another without the need for governments to egg them on.

Some dimensions of a future civil war would be, I think, largely unprecedented. When lesser countries have imploded in violence in recent times, they have done so with most of the world around them still intact. There were other nations to offer aid, assistance and intervention, welcome or unwelcome. There were places for refugees to go. The collapse of the world’s remaining superpower would take much of the world down with it. A global economic crisis would be inevitable. The withdrawal of American forces from bases across the world to fight at home would also create a power vacuum that others, even under economic strain, would be tempted to exploit. Whichever side gained control of our nuclear arsenal, our status as a nuclear power would probably persuade other nations not to interfere in our conflict militarily, but the collapse of trade alone would produce crippling effects that would be hard to overestimate. Many components for products our manufacturing sector makes are globally sourced. Add to this the breakdown of our transportation system, dependent on oil and transecting one new front line after another. The internet would fail. It is a frail enough now. Financial systems would fail. What happens if the banks find half their assets suddenly in hostile territory? All Federal government functions, including Social Security, would fail, many of them losing their very legitimacy to one side or the other. Food production, heavily dependent on diesel fuel, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, not to mention a steady supply of genetically engineered seeds, would slump alarmingly. In short, most things we depend on are now held together by a network of delicate and complex connections. Without those connections, would you have a job? If so, in what medium of exchange could your employers manage to pay you? What would there be for you to buy? Does your town, your county, or even your state have the ability to marshal its resources into a viable economy? How many people in those entities could deal with anything worse than a weather disaster, in which they count on the fact that help is coming soon?

rom an economic perspective, I think it is fair to say that the left would have a bigger problem than the right. Cities cannot feed themselves under any conditions, and what food could be grown on America’s resource-starved farms would be gobbled up by people nearer and dearer to the farmers. Leftists would have to both secure vast territories around their urban strongholds and relearn from scratch the generations-lost art of food production. Liberal enclaves stranded in the hinterland would simply be untenable. We, on the other hand, would be critically short of new Hollywood movies. Without a steady supply of the works of Meryl Streep and Matt Damon, millions of conservatives would instantly drop dead from boredom – that is, according to Meryl Streep.

Up through the middle of the 20th century, cities were major hubs of industry, but liberal preoccupations with environmentalism have driven much of our surviving industry into rural areas. The domination of the South by the sheer scale of Northern industry that happened in the 1860s would not repeat itself in a future war. Both sides would probably have the means to manufacture basic military essentials, but producing sophisticated items like fighter planes would be simply too complex for the remaining economic base. It would be a war of soldiers, not of million-dollar robots. Were the war to stretch into years, the left would likely destroy their own economy with unfettered socialistic policies. This actually happened to the Spanish Republic in the 1930s. I can image their modern counterparts struggling to make eco-friendly weapons and organize culturally-sensitive, politically-correct collective farms.

Militarily, the left has other problems. They have saddled themselves with a longstanding disdain for military history and thought. A mob of whiney, untrained Antifa or BLM protestors doth not an army make. In recent decades, the left has sought not so much to co-opt the military as to rot it from within. When your idea of a military hero is Bowe Bergdahl or Bradley “call-me-Chelsea” Manning, it is evident that you’ve planned to fight your battles exclusively in the movies. The officer corps, or the part of it that’s worth the name, is ours. Although the left probably has a certain pool of minority ex-soldiers to draw on, I doubt they have a single general officer that still has his original issue genitalia. I’ll take a Texan and a Tar Heel against a metrosexual and a social justice warrior any day -- while admitting that the latter might conduct a far more colorful parade. Much would depend on how the military happened to fragment, but even if one side or the other got the lion’s share of it there simply aren’t enough soldiers in the armed forces to garrison the entire country. More troops would have to be raised, equipped, and trained.

The right would probably win a real war, for all the reasons I have sketched above. I suspect it wouldn’t take the three years to decide the issue that it took in Spain, but predicting a short war has usually proven to be a fool’s occupation. Long or short, tens of millions of people would likely starve to death before war and reconstruction were over -- far more than would die in actual fighting. Having seen a person starve to death, it is not a fate I’d wish on friends and family members -- or even on my enemies. It might be, after all the legal shenanigans are done, the necessary cost of keeping western society alive -- but it would no heroic action movie. Utopian ideologies die hard. War is hell.
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
45
Points
530
Saw that earlier today.

Deep thoughts....what would such a war look like with a Democratic leadership vs a Republican leadership down south?

Ugly both ways. 
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
403
Points
880
NavyShooter said:
Saw that earlier today.

Deep thoughts....what would such a war look like with a Democratic leadership vs a Republican leadership down south?

Ugly both ways.

Kind of like Ireland, but with better fast food.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
31
Points
530
NavyShooter said:
Saw that earlier today.

Deep thoughts....what would such a war look like with a Democratic leadership vs a Republican leadership down south?

Ugly both ways. 

It sure wouldn't be like the last one. Technology aside, there is a huge number (based on per capita) of young, still fit, combat veterans. And these guys show up fully armed and kitted, including ammo. They have an intimate knowledge of the enemies tactics, strengths and weaknesses. The middle east will look like a medieval seige, compared to when these sides decide to go at each other.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
403
Points
880
Thucydides said:
https://army.ca/forums/threads/125056/post-1513680.html#msg1513680

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/12/what_might_civil_war_be_like.html

December 20, 2017
What Might Civil War Be Like?
By E.M. Cadwaladr
The thought of Civil War has been in the minds of many people lately, on both sides of the political and cultural divide. This is not a thing to be wished for, though no one should kid themselves into believing it’s impossible either. Let us take a sober look at what such a conflict might entail.

To begin with, it would not look like the first American Civil War, which was essentially a war between two regions of the country with different economic interests. The divide created two separate countries, both initially contiguous, intact, and relatively homogeneous. The lines of demarcation now are only somewhat regional, and tend to correspond to differences between urban and rural populations, as well as differences of race and class. A second American Civil War would be much more similar to the Spanish Civil War, with the leftists dominating the cities and conservatives controlling the countryside. Conflicts of this nature, with enemies mixed geographically, are a formula for spontaneous mass bloodletting. India-Pakistan during the 1947 partition comes to mind as another modern example. Given an absence of legitimate government and the friction of proximity, ordinary people can be moved to settle grievances by killing one another without the need for governments to egg them on.

Some dimensions of a future civil war would be, I think, largely unprecedented. When lesser countries have imploded in violence in recent times, they have done so with most of the world around them still intact. There were other nations to offer aid, assistance and intervention, welcome or unwelcome. There were places for refugees to go. The collapse of the world’s remaining superpower would take much of the world down with it. A global economic crisis would be inevitable. The withdrawal of American forces from bases across the world to fight at home would also create a power vacuum that others, even under economic strain, would be tempted to exploit. Whichever side gained control of our nuclear arsenal, our status as a nuclear power would probably persuade other nations not to interfere in our conflict militarily, but the collapse of trade alone would produce crippling effects that would be hard to overestimate. Many components for products our manufacturing sector makes are globally sourced. Add to this the breakdown of our transportation system, dependent on oil and transecting one new front line after another. The internet would fail. It is a frail enough now. Financial systems would fail. What happens if the banks find half their assets suddenly in hostile territory? All Federal government functions, including Social Security, would fail, many of them losing their very legitimacy to one side or the other. Food production, heavily dependent on diesel fuel, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, not to mention a steady supply of genetically engineered seeds, would slump alarmingly. In short, most things we depend on are now held together by a network of delicate and complex connections. Without those connections, would you have a job? If so, in what medium of exchange could your employers manage to pay you? What would there be for you to buy? Does your town, your county, or even your state have the ability to marshal its resources into a viable economy? How many people in those entities could deal with anything worse than a weather disaster, in which they count on the fact that help is coming soon?

rom an economic perspective, I think it is fair to say that the left would have a bigger problem than the right. Cities cannot feed themselves under any conditions, and what food could be grown on America’s resource-starved farms would be gobbled up by people nearer and dearer to the farmers. Leftists would have to both secure vast territories around their urban strongholds and relearn from scratch the generations-lost art of food production. Liberal enclaves stranded in the hinterland would simply be untenable. We, on the other hand, would be critically short of new Hollywood movies. Without a steady supply of the works of Meryl Streep and Matt Damon, millions of conservatives would instantly drop dead from boredom – that is, according to Meryl Streep.

Up through the middle of the 20th century, cities were major hubs of industry, but liberal preoccupations with environmentalism have driven much of our surviving industry into rural areas. The domination of the South by the sheer scale of Northern industry that happened in the 1860s would not repeat itself in a future war. Both sides would probably have the means to manufacture basic military essentials, but producing sophisticated items like fighter planes would be simply too complex for the remaining economic base. It would be a war of soldiers, not of million-dollar robots. Were the war to stretch into years, the left would likely destroy their own economy with unfettered socialistic policies. This actually happened to the Spanish Republic in the 1930s. I can image their modern counterparts struggling to make eco-friendly weapons and organize culturally-sensitive, politically-correct collective farms.

Militarily, the left has other problems. They have saddled themselves with a longstanding disdain for military history and thought. A mob of whiney, untrained Antifa or BLM protestors doth not an army make. In recent decades, the left has sought not so much to co-opt the military as to rot it from within. When your idea of a military hero is Bowe Bergdahl or Bradley “call-me-Chelsea” Manning, it is evident that you’ve planned to fight your battles exclusively in the movies. The officer corps, or the part of it that’s worth the name, is ours. Although the left probably has a certain pool of minority ex-soldiers to draw on, I doubt they have a single general officer that still has his original issue genitalia. I’ll take a Texan and a Tar Heel against a metrosexual and a social justice warrior any day -- while admitting that the latter might conduct a far more colorful parade. Much would depend on how the military happened to fragment, but even if one side or the other got the lion’s share of it there simply aren’t enough soldiers in the armed forces to garrison the entire country. More troops would have to be raised, equipped, and trained.

The right would probably win a real war, for all the reasons I have sketched above. I suspect it wouldn’t take the three years to decide the issue that it took in Spain, but predicting a short war has usually proven to be a fool’s occupation. Long or short, tens of millions of people would likely starve to death before war and reconstruction were over -- far more than would die in actual fighting. Having seen a person starve to death, it is not a fate I’d wish on friends and family members -- or even on my enemies. It might be, after all the legal shenanigans are done, the necessary cost of keeping western society alive -- but it would no heroic action movie. Utopian ideologies die hard. War is hell.

It seems fitting to see 'Mr. C' placed an a spectrum of some kind :)

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-thinker/

 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3
Points
430
NavyShooter said:
Saw that earlier today.

Deep thoughts....what would such a war look like with a Democratic leadership vs a Republican leadership down south?

Ugly both ways.

The constant division of peoples into mutually hostile "identity" groups means many parts of the US may resemble former Yugoslavia or Syria in the event of an actual shooting war. And trying to picture huge urban conglomerations devolving into something like Sarajevo is horrifying to contemplate.

As for the nature of the government if a shooting war breaks out, I suspect Washington's (or anyone's) authority will rapidly evaporate and it will no longer matter which party is in power, only which local warlord has the best trained and equipped militia force and access to food and water. The US military might not even be able to do more than protect their local bases and cantonments if they are logistically cut off from their supplies.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
29
Points
530
Thucydides said:
The constant division of peoples into mutually hostile "identity" groups means many parts of the US may resemble former Yugoslavia or Syria in the event of an actual shooting war. And trying to picture huge urban conglomerations devolving into something like Sarajevo is horrifying to contemplate.

As for the nature of the government if a shooting war breaks out, I suspect Washington's (or anyone's) authority will rapidly evaporate and it will no longer matter which party is in power, only which local warlord has the best trained and equipped militia force and access to food and water. The US military might not even be able to do more than protect their local bases and cantonments if they are logistically cut off from their supplies.

That’s assuming anyone in the military actually shows up for work when the house of cards collapses. 

Anecdote alert

The topic of SHTF scenarios come up from time to time around camp fires in my social group.  It’s often joked that they should all rally at my house, I am the only firearms owner and the only one with any knowledge of how to live off the land.  In no uncertain terms I warn them not to come to my house because we will already be gone, and they are on their own.  I get some strange looks...
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
79
Points
530
The "winner" of any theoretical US civil war is the side that is in power at the time.

Left or right,  how many officers and NCMs are going to break their oath?
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
31
Points
530
Halifax Tar said:
That’s assuming anyone in the military actually shows up for work when the house of cards collapses. 

Anecdote alert

The topic of SHTF scenarios come up from time to time around camp fires in my social group.  It’s often joked that they should all rally at my house, I am the only firearms owner and the only one with any knowledge of how to live off the land.  In no uncertain terms I warn them not to come to my house because we will already be gone, and they are on their own.  I get some strange looks...

I tell people something similar. They all say, "We're coming to your place. You have food, water and guns." I like telling them. "Sorry. I only have guns & ammo. However, with those guns, I'll get all the food and water I need. And I'm coming to your place first." Typically, there's some befuddlement, then a sense of glaring clarity on their face and nervous chuckling as they walk away. Reality bites :)
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
45
Points
530
recceguy said:
I tell people something similar. They all say, "We're coming to your place. You have food, water and guns." I like telling them. "Sorry. I only have guns & ammo. However, with those guns, I'll get all the food and water I need. And I'm coming to your place first." Typically, there's some befuddlement, then a sense of glaring clarity on their face and nervous chuckling as they walk away. Reality bites :)


Folks don't get the tale of the ant vs the grasshopper. 


Show up here, you'd best have something more to offer than a warm body that needs feeding.  Explaining to people that anything I've prepared is scaled for my family, not theirs is a befuddling statement to most.  Explaining to them that the gate closes, and the manned gun pit gets manned against by the family against entry by non-family is...enlightening.

 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
29
Points
530
Altair said:
The "winner" of any theoretical US civil war is the side that is in power at the time.

Left or right,  how many officers and NCMs are going to break their oath?

Lots
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
198
Points
680
Any force wishing to succeed would first need a port city, a generation station with a energy supply, enough military equipment and trained men to protect them, plus food sources and water supply.

But all this does not happen in a vacuum. First of all what happens to the USN? In particular the boomer subs, who are they loyal to? If things went really weird, it's possibly a number would sail to the UK and be interned there for safe keeping till things settle out. Russia and China aren't going to sit this out, if the USN picks a side and are able to maintain a blockade of foreign interventionists, then things might not last long. But if the USN splinters and loses supply bases, fuel, crews and ships, then expect the Chinese to offer "assistance" to the West Coast states, for a price of course. It would be in a lot of peoples interest to have the US eat itself and destroy it's own power. I don't see any Americans likely to turn their nukes on each other and I expect that the forces guarding them might stay out of the fight and everyone sort of playing along with that.

Canada will feel quite threatened, likely requesting that the UK, France and Germany provide forces to help protect it from hostile actors. Canada would likely work at trying to get wheat and other basics to starving cities and would maintain electric and water inputs for as long as possible. Canada's economy would both shrink and benefit from the war. We would suffer a massive refugee problem and would need international help that might not be as forthcoming as we like.

Various actors like Iran would stir the pot, by arming Mexican Narc gangs to attack and push into the Southern US and likely also attack Israel, many payments to various states like Pakistan, Egypt would stop and they might start falling apart, if Israel is cast adrift and is being threatened with destruction, it's possible they fire one nuke at Iran as a warning .

Russia will stick it's paddle into the waters, but they are constrained by economic reasons from doing to much, likely gobbling up some of the smaller Eastern European states, forcing Germany and France to form a real military alliance and anther "wall" on the border of Poland, with Finland being the northern Bastion. China will use this to basically become the global power, possibly "suspending" the US veto power in the UNSC, other nations will see the writing on the wall and step into line. Japan will quickly become a Nuke power to protect itself, but play both sides of the fence. South Korea will lose the massive US army protection who would have sailed home (with or without equipment) and then SK will need to suck up to China to help block NK.     
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3
Points
430
Another good look at the issue:

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2018/03/12/why-democrats-would-lose-the-second-civil-war-too-n2459833

Why Democrats Would Lose the Second Civil War, Too
Kurt  Schlichter Kurt Schlichter |Posted: Mar 12, 2018 12:01 AM

It’s obvious that the central tenet of the Democrat Party platform is now hatred and contempt for Normal Americans. Taking their cue from the elites in Europe and Canada who are stripping dissenters of their free speech rights and religious freedoms, the leftist elite is moving to solidify its hold on power here with the eager assistance of tech companies and the moral support of the Fredocons who yearn to return to pseudo-relevance as the ruling class’s slobberingly loyal opposition. In California, the leftist government is practically firing on Fort Sumter. And nationally, these aspiring fascists are especially eager to disarm Normal Americans – doing so would be an object lesson in who’s the boss, as well as solving that frustrating problem of the Normals having the ability to resist.

Probably because I’ve spent time where they actually had a civil war, many people ask me – people whose names you know – whether I think this turmoil will all end in a Second Civil War. They are seriously concerned, and not without cause – the left’s hatred for Normal Americans and its dedication to totally stripping the people who are the backbone of this country of their ability to participate in their own governance is threatening to rip the country apart.

Do I think there will be a civil war? No, but there could be. This is the Age of Black Swans, and anything is possible – we could easily see the country split into red and blue. Civil war is unlikely, but never underestimate Democrat stupidity and hatred. The Schlichter family learned that lesson a century and half ago, the last time the Democrats decided to try to impose their hatred of basic human rights on the rest of the country, when an army of Democrats burned our family hometown.

CARTOONS | KEN CATALINO
VIEW CARTOON
Oh, they paid for it. And they would pay again. Democrats are 0-1 in insurrections, and if they went for another round, they would be 0-2. It’s a matter of terrain, numbers, and morale.

Democrats, who think history began when Obama was elected, don’t understand the dangerous game they are playing when they talk about how they want to impose their brown shirt vision upon red America. The keyboard commandos of the left seek to hand wave away the massive strategic challenge of imposing control by force upon a well-armed, decentralized citizenry occupying the vast majority of the territory, so they babble about drones and tanks as counterinsurgency trump cards. But there are no trump cards in war. There are men, with rifles, standing on patches of dirt, killing the people trying to push them off. That’s the ugly reality of war. And multiply the usual brutality of war by ten when it’s a civil war.

There are two Civil War II scenarios, and the left is poorly positioned to prevail in either one. The first scenario is that the Democrats take power and violate the Constitution in order to use the apparatus of the federal government to suppress and oppress Normal Americans. In that scenario, red Americans are the insurgents. In the second scenario, which we can even now see the stirrings of in California’s campaign to nullify federal immigration law, it is the blue states that are the insurgents.

The Democrats lose both wars. Big time.

Let’s talk terrain and numbers. Remember the famous red v. blue voting map? There is a lot of red, and in the interior the few blue splotches are all cities like Las Vegas or Denver. That is a lot of territory for a counter-insurgent force to control, and this is critical. The red is where the food is grown, the oil pumped, and through which everything is transported. And that red space is filled with millions of American citizens with small arms, a fairly large percentage of whom have military training.

Remember what two untrained idiots did in Boston with a couple of pistols? They shut a city down. Now multiply that by several million, with better weapons and training.

Let’s look at the counter-insurgent forces in the Democrat oppression scenario should they attempt to misuse our law enforcement and military in an unconstitutional manner to take the rights of American citizens. There are a lot of civilian law enforcement officers, but the vast majority of the agencies are local – sheriffs, small town police departments. They will not be reliable allies in supporting unlawful oppression of their friends and neighbors. The major cities’ police departments are run by Democrat appointees, so the commands would be loyal. But the rank-and-file? A small percentage would be ideologically loyal. More would be loyal because that’s their paycheck – they could be swayed or intimidated to support the rebels. Others would be actively sympathetic to the insurgents. This is true of federal law enforcement agencies as well.

And the military? Well, wouldn’t the military just crush any resistance? Not so fast. The military would have the combat power to win any major engagement, but insurgents don’t get into major engagements with forces that have more combat power. They instead leverage their decentralized ability to strike at the counter-insurgents’ weak points to eliminate the government’s firepower advantage. In other words, hit and run, and no stand-up fights.

For example, how do a bunch of hunters in Wisconsin defeat a company of M1A2 Abrams tanks? They ambush the fuel and ammo trucks. Oh, and they wait until the gunner pops the hatch to take a leak and put a .30-06 round in his back from 300 meters. Then they disappear. What do the tanks do then? Go level the nearest town? Great. Now they just moved the needle in favor of the insurgents among the population. Pretty soon, they can’t be outside of their armored vehicles in public. Their forces are spending 90% of their efforts not on actual counter-insurgency operations but on force protection. Sure, they own their forward operating bases, and they own a few hundred meters around them wherever they happen to be standing at the moment, but the rest of the territory is bright red. As my recent novel illustrates, American guerillas with small arms are a deadly threat to the forces of a dictatorship.

But the military is so big it would overwhelm any rebels, right? Well, how big do you think the military is? And, more importantly, how many actual boots on the ground can it deploy? Let’s put it in terms of brigade combat teams, which total about 4,500 troops each. There are about 60 brigades in the Army, active and reserve, here and abroad, and let’s give the Marines another 10 brigades, for about 70 brigades. Sounds impressive. But that’s deceptive.

Let’s put aside a big consideration – the existence of red states that would provide for an insurgent government structure and possibly attract the loyalty of some National Guard and even federal brigades. For example, if President Hillary Clinton put down her chardonnay long enough to sign a ban on privately owned guns, it’s not unreasonable to expect the governor of Texas to reject federal authority – after all, California just taught us that this is totally cool. But in this case, look for several brigades located there to hoist the Lone Star flag.

So, now the blue states are facing unconventional and conventional forces.

Let’s ignore that problem and focus on a different challenge. Even a normal unit has about 10% non-deployable members. Now, if these troops were assigned to combat operations against other Americans, you would have significant additional losses through desertion. Many of the senior leaders would participate – the Obama generation – and there is a certain type of junior officer only too happy to curry favor by sucking up in defiance of their oath (which is to the Constitution, not to some leftist president). You can identify them because they usually have “strategist” in their Twitter bios. But a lot of key, capable officer and NCO leaders, and enlisted troops, would vanish. That is proper. It is a violation of their oath to unconstitutionally oppress fellow Americans; their duty would be to refuse such unlawful orders.

So, you have significantly understrength units going in. Now, how many of the troops in a brigade are actually even front line combat troops? About a third – the rest are support. So a brigade is really about 1500 riflemen tops before you count losses. Cut those in half for sleep, training, and refitting at any one time (which is very generous) and your brigade is really 750 troops on your best day with everyone showing up. Realistically, it’s 300.

That holds one mid-sized town. And there are hundreds of mid-sized towns. Plus there are millions of Normal Americans who would fight back. Nothing would move without their permission – a few guys shooting up big rigs along the interstate would shut down the entire trucking industry. Bottom line: there simply are not enough military forces to clear and hold red America.

What about drones and bombers? Both are useful. But the minute a bombing strike kills some red civilians the families of counter-insurgent drone operators and pilots will be knocking at the base gates to be let inside. Now you’ll need many of those brigades to protect the civilians you now need to protect from retribution.

Civil wars are harsh. That’s why you avoid them.

How about the blue insurgency scenario? That goes even worse for the Democrats. You have the federal government apparatus in the hands of red America, and the insurgents are the opposite of decentralized and armed. They are conveniently centered in gun-unfriendly blue cities. In other words, the blue civilian population is much less of a threat.

A red counter-insurgency avoids the problem of a decentralized insurgency and insecure logistical lines. In the case of California, whose secessionist antics are approaching the point where President Trump could legitimately employ his power to crush insurrections, the tactical problem is relatively simple. For example, San Francisco is a hotbed of treason, but the populace is largely unarmed and is trapped in a confined area. You put a brigade on securing the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges, then put a brigade on the San Francisco Peninsula to cut off the I-280 and US-101 corridors. Next you go to the Crystal Springs Dam and cut off the water. Then you watch and wait as the tech hipsters run out of artisanal sushi rice and kombucha.

After about a week, they surrender. After all, you can’t eat and drink smugness. LA is just bigger in scope – more corridors to cut off, but in the end the population concentrations in large liberal urban areas that are their strength also make them extremely vulnerable to logistical pressure.

Then there’s another factor, an intangible but a crucial one. It’s commitment. The Democrat threat to peace is based on its policies designed to deprive Normal Americans of their right to speak freely, to worship freely, and to defend themselves and their rights with firearms. Make no mistake – millions of Normal Americans are willing to risk death to defend those rights. In fact, many swore to do so when they entered our military and law enforcement. But who is the leftist big talker willing to die to impose the fascist dream of censorship, religious oppression, and disarmament on Normal American citizens? Is the screeching SJW at Yale going to suit up in Kevlar? Is the Vox columnist going to grab a M4? Is the Hollywood poser going to switch her gyno-beanie for a helmet?

No. Hell, we just heard our liberal opponents explaining why a cop shouldn’t be expected to go fight a scumbag murdering kids because it’s scary. America might split apart, but it’s highly unlikely Team Kale n’ Vinyl would fight should their big talk finally push Normal America too far.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
29
Points
530
Thucydides said:
Another good look at the issue:

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2018/03/12/why-democrats-would-lose-the-second-civil-war-too-n2459833

Interesting read.  I truly think the US Military would be heavily fractured if a civil war were to happen.  Not to mention all of the state national guards who are loyal to state then country. 

Either way a US Civil War 2.0 would be a disaster for Canada, I would imagine it would probably be bad enough to fracture us into pieces as well.
 

beirnini

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
It's really disturbing that an article that is creeping towards calling Democrats "cockroaches" and describes the favourable chances of success in civil war against said "enemy" is here being described as a "good look at the issue" by a CF member sworn to keep her Majesty's Peace. I would give the benefit of the doubt that it is purely for academic interest only, but given the member's posting history I'm disinclined.
 

Remius

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
100
Points
630
This whole scenario reads like some sort of badly written teen fantasy. 
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
29
Points
530
beirnini said:
It's really disturbing that an article that is creeping towards calling Democrats "cockroaches" and describes the favourable chances of success in civil war against said "enemy" is here being described as a "good look at the issue" by a CF member sworn to keep her Majesty's Peace. I would give the benefit of the doubt that it is purely for academic interest only, but given the member's posting history I'm disinclined.

The political landscape of the USA is very polarized with little middle ground to be agreed upon it seems.  Name calling and derogatory comments are not the sole use of speech of just one side. 

As for calling into question the dedication and service of Thucydides, I suggest you saunter back into your lane and leave your own derogatory and dismissive comments for when you have actual service with which to bring forward.

 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
45
Points
530
Oops.  That was to have been a -300 not a plus 300.

Dammit.

Anyhow, the lack of ability to hold a reasoned debate is the greatest concern I have for today's society.

The absence of a middle ground, and the near instant resorting to name-calling and cursing is a considerable concern.

Once upon a time, you learned how to debate in school....the geeks in the debating club...they were given a topic and forced to argue one side or the other, they had no choice as to which side they got. 

That forced the debaters to look logically and objectively at the other side of the argument and find a reasoned method to argue against it.  Whether they believed in it or not.

That ability to logically and reasonably see the other side's point of view is rapidly disappearing from today's society.

The descent to a civil war...that's an extreme we all hope will never come to pass, but in looking at it from a slightly detached point of view, yes, the big blue cities with all the strict gun laws (and most of the gun crime) will end up being the losers....and Canada will end up getting marred as well. 

There would be no winner, but many would lose, and in looking at the thin veneer of civilization in places in the past 25 years, consider that an Olympic soccer stadium became a grave-yard in Sarajevo.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/sarajevos-abandoned-olympic-sites-180949468/


 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
263
Points
830
beirnini said:
It's really disturbing that an article that is creeping towards calling Democrats "cockroaches" and describes the favourable chances of success in civil war against said "enemy" is here being described as a "good look at the issue" by a CF member sworn to keep her Majesty's Peace. I would give the benefit of the doubt that it is purely for academic interest only, but given the member's posting history I'm disinclined.

The member in question has been faithfully serving Canada since likely before you were born, and is of no mean intellect either. Perhaps after you enroll in the CAF yourself, given some time you'll begin to learn that our warriors may also be scholars, and that they may be able to balance honourable service with academic discussion on some points that may be contentious and may even hurt your feelings.
 
Top