2nd Civil War Theorycrafting Thread, Peaches Free

  • Thread starter Deleted member 88
  • Start date
Jormungandr

Jormungandr

The Midgard Wyrm
Founder
Rocinante said:
They don't need to have kids. They're indoctrinating yours.
Click to expand...
This. There's no need for Leftards to bang out kids when they're too busy basically stealing the minds of your own children.

Hell, I came across a story on YouTube, in one of those text-to-speech compilations, where a teacher was talking about racism and terms used (such as 'nigger') in a film --a fucking fictional film-- and the growing crop of Leftard Drones in his class automatically leapt at his throat by calling him racist... because he said the likes of "nigger".

Like, as if fucking discussing it makes you a racist.

They don't need kids: They're basically stealing yours.
 
Terthna

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Jormungandr said:
As I said before many times, the Democrats have gone full on... I'm not sure whether they're socialist, communist, fascist, or a bizarre mix of the three as all their actions line-up with moves from the pre-Nazi German and pre-Soviet Russian playbooks -- especially with using escape goats, manipulating the people, having their own wings of "revolutionaries" in BLM and AntiFa...

I can see America going down four paths:
  • It's subsumed by Leftard ideology and becomes a twisted parody of America which will inevitably collapse anyway -- although we're seeing twisted shit like Critical Race Theory and indoctrination being taught in schools and the like, I think this is the least likely option
  • You guys have a coup, but while it would remove the Leftist rot from the top if it's successful, it could also put people who are Far-Right/Alt-Right in charge -- that would just be as bad
  • Civil unrest keeps occurring until the victimized portion of the population, namely Whites, snap back hard and it'll make the racism, sexism, and homophobia seen in the past (e.g. 18th--20th) look like a fucking child's birthday party in comparison
  • Outright civil war, albeit a dirty one that'd be divided mostly between towns, cities, the countryside, and ideological lines. If the influence in one state far out-strips that of the opposition, state to state warfare may be on the cards, too
Oh, and there's the "sanity is gradually restored" option, but that's about as likely as a high-school football team winning the European Cup by this point.
Click to expand...
An American football team at that. Seriously though, I'm thinking it's going to be a combination of the last three; a civil war, followed by the far right taking over, which facilitates a backlash against social justice that damn near puts us back at square one.
 
boomghost

boomghost

I trust you know where the launch button is?
eh, personally I just expect there to be a bunch social divisions, with people segregating themselves based on politics as much as they can- of course this means the californians moving to republican states will get ruder and ruder welcomes until its pretty blatant they're being told to leave. Basically one nation with two distinct cultures.

i doubt it'll become a civil war unless we get a complete dumbass in charge who decides to actually go through with gun grabbing
 
Harlock

Harlock

I should have expected that really
BlackDragon98 said:
What about Canada?

Would the violence/civil war drift up north as well?

Because if there is a full blown civil war, except me to head south as a volunteer for the militias.
Click to expand...

If there is an all out US Civil war Canada will be too busy dealing with millions of starving possibly armed refugees swamping its border


More likely the worst case is going to be Irish style acts of sectarian violence until people get sick of it and force a settlement. First world nations are far too reliant on infrastructure to risk losing it. When roving armed gangs start cutting road and rail links supplying population centres with food or blow up power lines and stations they're going to become very unpopular very fast.

No one is fool enough to want that, and if they are they deserve to live in whatever comes out the other side. Won't be pretty.
 
Harlock

Harlock

I should have expected that really
Problem is if you provide escorts it dilutes your forces, makes it harder to concentrate for offensive action. Plus you need to defend the bridges, highways, tunnels, depots etc. IEDs are easy to make and as people keep saying the country is awash in guns.

I think the main issue is that in 1860 the lines were easily drawn. You had one clump of states go one way, another clump go another and both sides were geographically mostly linked. They shared borders and broadly speaking were consistent with a front line and easily recognised opponents.
In this scenario I don't think you'll have that same geographic split, the two sides won't be a pair of blocks but scattered across the country. I'd also be surprised if it was entire states vs entire states, more likely the split is on a smaller scale like counties or even towns.
That means you can get red enclaves surrounded by blue ones and vice versa and getting supplies into such places would be hazardous, costly and drain manpower from more critical roles.

If it does turn to war I reckon there are two examples. It won't be like the 1860 war with two big blocks, more likely because support is scattered it'll go either like the English Civil war where fighting tended to concentrate around major cities and assets while the rest of the country just tried to get on with day to day life, or it goes like an African civil war where everyone arms up and goes to war with their neighbours.
 
V

Vaermina

Well-known member
Harlock said:
Problem is if you provide escorts it dilutes your forces, makes it harder to concentrate for offensive action. Plus you need to defend the bridges, highways, tunnels, depots etc. IEDs are easy to make and as people keep saying the country is awash in guns.

I think the main issue is that in 1860 the lines were easily drawn. You had one clump of states go one way, another clump go another and both sides were geographically mostly linked. They shared borders and broadly speaking were consistent with a front line and easily recognised opponents.
In this scenario I don't think you'll have that same geographic split, the two sides won't be a pair of blocks but scattered across the country. I'd also be surprised if it was entire states vs entire states, more likely the split is on a smaller scale like counties or even towns.
That means you can get red enclaves surrounded by blue ones and vice versa and getting supplies into such places would be hazardous, costly and drain manpower from more critical roles.

If it does turn to war I reckon there are two examples. It won't be like the 1860 war with two big blocks, more likely because support is scattered it'll go either like the English Civil war where fighting tended to concentrate around major cities and assets while the rest of the country just tried to get on with day to day life, or it goes like an African civil war where everyone arms up and goes to war with their neighbours.
Click to expand...
An actual Red vs Blue civil war would end pretty quickly because Blue is centered mostly around big cities and the US is a net exporter of food stuffs.

Simple fact is modern day cities can't support themselves for more then a couple weeks.

Case in point, the recent run on gas caused by the pipeline shutdown.
 
Harlock

Harlock

I should have expected that really
Vaermina said:
An actual Red vs Blue civil war would end pretty quickly because Blue is centered mostly around big cities and the US is a net exporter of food stuffs.

Simple fact is modern day cities can't support themselves for more then a couple weeks.

Case in point, the recent run on gas caused by the pipeline shutdown.
Click to expand...

That is where most of the deaths would be yeah. The issue would be though that those people won't politely sit in their cities and wait to die, they'll mount up and go looking for food. It'll be a mass exodus into those rural areas and sure those towns will be armed to the teeth but thats a lot of people they'll have to kill.
Odds are good a lot of Red places just get overrun and while long term they may be in the better position a lot of them are going to get slaughtered first. If it goes that far nobody is coming out without massive casualties
 
Bassoe

Bassoe

Well-known member
Harlock said:
Problem is if you provide escorts it dilutes your forces, makes it harder to concentrate for offensive action. Plus you need to defend the bridges, highways, tunnels, depots etc. IEDs are easy to make and as people keep saying the country is awash in guns.
Click to expand...
That's only a problem if they're your forces being used as the caravan guards. Instead of expecting publicly funded police to do their goddam job and guard private property, insofar as they obviously aren't, those wealthy enough to afford to do so would just hire mercenaries.
 
Zachowon

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Harlock said:
That is where most of the deaths would be yeah. The issue would be though that those people won't politely sit in their cities and wait to die, they'll mount up and go looking for food. It'll be a mass exodus into those rural areas and sure those towns will be armed to the teeth but thats a lot of people they'll have to kill.
Odds are good a lot of Red places just get overrun and while long term they may be in the better position a lot of them are going to get slaughtered first. If it goes that far nobody is coming out without massive casualties
Click to expand...
Most people in blue cities aren't armed and most small towns may barricade their towns Walking dead style.
 
Captain X

Captain X

Well-known member
Osaul
Zachowon said:
Most people in blue cities aren't armed and most small towns may barricade their towns Walking dead style.
Click to expand...
I have a feeling this wouldn't be terribly practical. Yes, you could make strong points, but small towns would have the same vulnerability of big cities if cut off this way. Frankly, if there is enough time to plan and construct static defenses this way, it would make more sense for rural populations to go on the offensive and essentially lay siege to the big cities.
 
Harlock

Harlock

I should have expected that really
Zachowon said:
Most people in blue cities aren't armed and most small towns may barricade their towns Walking dead style.
Click to expand...
To quote a Klingon, everything is a weapon :) If your wife and kids are starving you'll find a way even if you go and Mad Max it. Even if you fortify towns can you fortify ten thousand acres of wheat field when desperate people trample it robbing your town of its future supply?

Rural areas are stronger but don't imagine they'll just weather it, they're not as fucked as cities but they are fucked in a worse case African style war. It won't matter your politics, when it gets bad red will turn on red and blue on blue. Just human nature, best ensure it never gets that far or it is the end of the country.
 
Bacle

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Captain X said:
I have a feeling this wouldn't be terribly practical. Yes, you could make strong points, but small towns would have the same vulnerability of big cities if cut off this way. Frankly, if there is enough time to plan and construct static defenses this way, it would make more sense for rural populations to go on the offensive and essentially lay siege to the big cities.
Click to expand...
And how many of those small towns have anything that could double as AA?

Because the fighting won't just be on the ground, and those who control the air usually have the advantage in a conflict.

Even police helo's would be enough to change the balance against most rural towns.

That's before we even get into drone warfare, which will be part of any civil conflict going forward.
 
Zachowon

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Bacle said:
And how many of those small towns have anything that could double as AA?

Because the fighting won't just be on the ground, and those who control the air usually have the advantage in a conflict.

Even police helo's would be enough to change the balance against most rural towns.

That's before we even get into drone warfare, which will be part of any civil conflict going forward.
Click to expand...
Police copters are not armored and a good shot can take them down.

I am not advocating for anything
 
C

Cherico

Well-known member
Harlock said:
Problem is if you provide escorts it dilutes your forces, makes it harder to concentrate for offensive action. Plus you need to defend the bridges, highways, tunnels, depots etc. IEDs are easy to make and as people keep saying the country is awash in guns.

I think the main issue is that in 1860 the lines were easily drawn. You had one clump of states go one way, another clump go another and both sides were geographically mostly linked. They shared borders and broadly speaking were consistent with a front line and easily recognised opponents.
In this scenario I don't think you'll have that same geographic split, the two sides won't be a pair of blocks but scattered across the country. I'd also be surprised if it was entire states vs entire states, more likely the split is on a smaller scale like counties or even towns.
That means you can get red enclaves surrounded by blue ones and vice versa and getting supplies into such places would be hazardous, costly and drain manpower from more critical roles.

If it does turn to war I reckon there are two examples. It won't be like the 1860 war with two big blocks, more likely because support is scattered it'll go either like the English Civil war where fighting tended to concentrate around major cities and assets while the rest of the country just tried to get on with day to day life, or it goes like an African civil war where everyone arms up and goes to war with their neighbours.
Click to expand...


rf.jpg




rough map of what a civil war would look like, notice something about the blue areas, for the most part their outposts in a sea of red. The blue is clustered mostly around the coast with small enclaves spread around the country the red areas are continuous what happens is that in the event of war the enclaves are starved out and fall. Then force is applied to one of the coasts and its crushed and then the other coast is crushed.

In a civil war the blue suffers from serious logistics problems and in a true civil war they either have to win fast or slowly be destroyed.
 
Bacle

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Cherico said:
rf.jpg




rough map of what a civil war would look like, notice something about the blue areas, for the most part their outposts in a sea of red. The blue is clustered mostly around the coast with small enclaves spread around the country the red areas are continuous what happens is that in the event of war the enclaves are starved out and fall. Then force is applied to one of the coasts and its crushed and then the other coast is crushed.

In a civil war the blue suffers from serious logistics problems and in a true civil war they either have to win fast or slowly be destroyed.
Click to expand...
I want you to look at that again, and look at how many ports blues control, vs reds.

The interior blue areas might have issues, but the coasts can just go to foreign suppliers for many things.

It also means they will likely control most of the Navy, and can interdict the few red ports rather easily. The blues also control most of the Southern border, so good luck getting supplies via Mexico, and I doubt Canada will help.

Also, how do the reds plan to deal with the blues orbital assets, which can give them massive advantages? I doubt the reds would have access to anything close to much in terms of AA or air power, never mind ASAT, weaponry.

Anyone who thinks the reds have anything approaching good odds is a fool that is ignoring the geographic, technical, and international realities such a conflict would take place in.
 
DarthOne

DarthOne

☦️
Cherico said:
rf.jpg




rough map of what a civil war would look like, notice something about the blue areas, for the most part their outposts in a sea of red. The blue is clustered mostly around the coast with small enclaves spread around the country the red areas are continuous what happens is that in the event of war the enclaves are starved out and fall. Then force is applied to one of the coasts and its crushed and then the other coast is crushed.

In a civil war the blue suffers from serious logistics problems and in a true civil war they either have to win fast or slowly be destroyed.
Click to expand...
Question how would we stop them getting food and supply shipments by sea, assuming that the Navy isn’t on our side to some level or other?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top