Civil Wargames

[Latrinsorm]

Saw a dear friend of mine over the weekend and she worried about an impending civil war. I don't think there will be one, but I'm wondering what other peoples' thoughts are.

The specific scenario she proposed was:
1. President Trump resigns / is impeached / is assassinated / loses the primary / loses the election / otherwise leaves office.
2. In retaliation, the Nazis etc. organize and remove (by whichever means) the Democrats in a given state or states, for example Mississippi and then the rest of the Deep South.
3. Enough of the rest of the country is on board or not actively off board that the military is split.
4. Hence, civil war.

My feeling is that the Nazis and their various ilks aren't as geographically concentrated as slavery proponents were leading up to the Civil War. As they are necessarily cowards, it's obviously hard to pinpoint an exact geographic distribution, but I have found one resource that I feel is useful. Take for example those the Southern Poverty Law Center labels "white nationalist" or "neo-Nazi": at best there's a vague Rust Belt preponderance, but overall they look like scattered grains. Certainly "neo-Confederates" and "Ku Klux Klan" have a southeastern preponderance but it's hard to see any single denomination rising to the level of dominating a state without unification, and there isn't enough overlap on this map to my eyes for that to happen.

But let's say they do, or threaten to. How might the federal government respond?

My thought was that the specific generals President Trump has elevated to significant positions would take a hard line against the Nazis, with or without civilian support. Obviously none of them served in WW2 itself, but let's go down the list. McMaster is extremely well known for his criticism of civilian leadership in the Vietnam War and his anti-insurgency tactics, and he has proven effective in the political realm as well (c.f. Bannon and Gorka getting the boot). Mattis is famously well read, he's certainly ill-disposed to Iran (famous for their Holocaust denial), and he's shown already that he's willing to contradict the President in public. Kelly has a lot to say about threats to our way of life, but they are uhhh kind of universally about brown people, so let's call him a known unknown.

Combine that with a Congress where people as far right as Senator Rubio are unequivocal in their condemnation of the Nazis, and my take is that the overwhelming majority of the infrastructure (nukes, planes, tanks, quartermasters, etc.) would side with the United States. Deprived of this infrastructure and without a solid geographic base, any number of small arms armed insurgents would not be enough to trigger a full blown civil war. Significant bloodshed yes, civil war no.

.

So what do you think? Is another civil war imminent, and if so what sort?

[Methais]

But let's say they do, or threaten to. How might the federal government respond?

Mayweather vs. McGreggor in an octagon.

DR for silvers all year round.

The return of Klaive.

[Crash187]

A new civil war? One side has 8 trillion bullets, one side doesn't know what bathroom to use.

[Methais]

A new civil war? One side has 8 trillion bullets, one side doesn't know what bathroom to use.

[Latrinsorm]

A new civil war? One side has 8 trillion bullets, one side doesn't know what bathroom to use.

See, that's the thing though. There's no threat of civil war between Republicans and Democrats. We disagree very strongly with our donkey brothers and sisters, but we have peacefully handed power back and forth multiple times without any issues in the past twenty years, and we frequently see bipartisan efforts both in Congress and out here in the real world.

To put a finer point on it, neither Republicans nor Democrats caused Charlottesville. Both Republicans and Democrats vehemently and categorically denounced the people who did. But those people are empirically a potent and violent bloc. So how large would that bloc have to be to start a civil war? And what other conditions, if any, would be necessary?

[Neveragain]

Saw a dear friend of mine over the weekend and she worried about an impending civil war. I don't think there will be one, but I'm wondering what other peoples' thoughts are.

The specific scenario she proposed was:
1. President Trump resigns / is impeached / is assassinated / loses the primary / loses the election / otherwise leaves office.
2. In retaliation, the Nazis etc. organize and remove (by whichever means) the Democrats in a given state or states, for example Mississippi and then the rest of the Deep South.
3. Enough of the rest of the country is on board or not actively off board that the military is split.
4. Hence, civil war.

My feeling is that the Nazis and their various ilks aren't as geographically concentrated as slavery proponents were leading up to the Civil War. As they are necessarily cowards, it's obviously hard to pinpoint an exact geographic distribution, but I have found one resource that I feel is useful. Take for example those the Southern Poverty Law Center labels "white nationalist" or "neo-Nazi": at best there's a vague Rust Belt preponderance, but overall they look like scattered grains. Certainly "neo-Confederates" and "Ku Klux Klan" have a southeastern preponderance but it's hard to see any single denomination rising to the level of dominating a state without unification, and there isn't enough overlap on this map to my eyes for that to happen.

But let's say they do, or threaten to. How might the federal government respond?

My thought was that the specific generals President Trump has elevated to significant positions would take a hard line against the Nazis, with or without civilian support. Obviously none of them served in WW2 itself, but let's go down the list. McMaster is extremely well known for his criticism of civilian leadership in the Vietnam War and his anti-insurgency tactics, and he has proven effective in the political realm as well (c.f. Bannon and Gorka getting the boot). Mattis is famously well read, he's certainly ill-disposed to Iran (famous for their Holocaust denial), and he's shown already that he's willing to contradict the President in public. Kelly has a lot to say about threats to our way of life, but they are uhhh kind of universally about brown people, so let's call him a known unknown.

Combine that with a Congress where people as far right as Senator Rubio are unequivocal in their condemnation of the Nazis, and my take is that the overwhelming majority of the infrastructure (nukes, planes, tanks, quartermasters, etc.) would side with the United States. Deprived of this infrastructure and without a solid geographic base, any number of small arms armed insurgents would not be enough to trigger a full blown civil war. Significant bloodshed yes, civil war no.

.

So what do you think? Is another civil war imminent, and if so what sort?

Depends, if the Bolshevik's continue rioting in the streets forcing more and more people from the center to side with the Nazi's because the normie's are tired of having their property destroyed, there may be some form of conflict. If it were to come to that I'm sure it would end up with a few Bolshevik's being shot in the streets and the rest of the communists deciding that moms basement wasn't so bad and return home to their xbox live.

[Crash187]

See, that's the thing though. There's no threat of civil war between Republicans and Democrats. We disagree very strongly with our donkey brothers and sisters, but we have peacefully handed power back and forth multiple times without any issues in the past twenty years, and we frequently see bipartisan efforts both in Congress and out here in the real world.

To put a finer point on it, neither Republicans nor Democrats caused Charlottesville. Both Republicans and Democrats vehemently and categorically denounced the people who did. But those people are empirically a potent and violent bloc. So how large would that bloc have to be to start a civil war? And what other conditions, if any, would be necessary?

That's just it. That bloc would never get that big. It's an overwhelming minority of people. Hell even if the KKK, neo nazis and antifa (they are all fighting for the same thing, their way or the highway) joined forces it wouldn't be nowhere near enough for an army. It'd be what maybe 1 million people( I think I'm being overly generous with that number) in a society of 350ish million? It's a non issue.

[Androidpk]

That's just it. That bloc would never get that big. It's an overwhelming minority of people. Hell even if the KKK, neo nazis and antifa (they are all fighting for the same thing, their way or the highway) joined forces it wouldn't be nowhere near enough for an army. It'd be what maybe 1 million people( I think I'm being overly generous with that number) in a society of 350ish million? It's a non issue.

isis numbers in only the tens of thousands and look how much chaos they've caused

[Kobold]

That's just it. That bloc would never get that big. It's an overwhelming minority of people. Hell even if the KKK, neo nazis and antifa (they are all fighting for the same thing, their way or the highway) joined forces it wouldn't be nowhere near enough for an army. It'd be what maybe 1 million people( I think I'm being overly generous with that number) in a society of 350ish million? It's a non issue.

The total population of active duty us military is 1.5 mil, and we're talking EVERYBODY marines, navy, army, coast guard, even the chair force PLUS civilian contractors. AND we have to patrol the entire fucking world not just a swath of Mesopotamia.

[Neveragain]

isis numbers in only the tens of thousands and look how much chaos they've caused

Most of those ISIS members are hardened soldiers that come from third world shit holes. The edgy fag trolloping in the streets of Seattle shrieking at anyone with a red baseball cap, that has lived with the comforts of a first world country, is not a war hardened soldier. These little faggots would roll up in the fetal position when the first sounds of gunshots echoed through the streets.