2nd Civil War Theorycrafting Thread, Peaches Free

The One Char said:

You guys have to understand, @Bacle is engaging in leftist doomerism.

Click to expand...

Bigking321 said:

Oh, of course.

But I don't really think it's a big deal.

There's a lot of depressing stuff happening nowadays. And some days are harder than others.

A little doomerism now and then isn't the worst thing to indulge in. Though too much absolutely starts rubbing people the wrong way.

And he may be right in the end. Who knows.

Click to expand...

Look, people here go on and on about a second civil war without really wanting to admit what that would mean, if they truly aim to go as far as some want.

The first ACW happened in a very different world with a different set of technological limitations on destructive power and command authorities.

And this isn't about the US gov being 'evil' or dooming, it's about recognizing the realities of what modern weaponry in the US arsenal means for any sort of conflict resembling the first ACW, and being willing to admit what a lot of Boogalo peeps don't want to address; if they want to do more than play an eternal game of "Wolverines", that means taking and holding territory with standing forces that cannot just melt away into hideaways. Which means being willing to engage in a stand-up fight against US Federal forces.

The only way to do that is either to have equal amounts of weaponry (unlikely), or have ways of wiping out large amounts of Federal forces/holding under threat places loyal to DC/DC itself; only way to do that is with area-effect weaponry that cannot be shrugged off or easily neutralized by any Federal forces. That means nukes.

Which is why there won't be a civil war, and the political system won't be 'fixed' by force, or likely anything short of divine intervention. Look for hope outside the US political system, in the divine, and in things like what Musk is doing for the betterment of all humanity.

Bacle said:

Look, people here go on and on about a second civil war without really wanting to admit what that would mean, if they truly aim to go as far as some want.

The first ACW happened in a very different world with a different set of technological limitations on destructive power and command authorities.

And this isn't about the US gov being 'evil' or dooming, it's about recognizing the realities of what modern weaponry in the US arsenal means for any sort of conflict resembling the first ACW, and being willing to admit what a lot of Boogalo peeps don't want to address; if they want to do more than play an eternal game of "Wolverines", that means taking and holding territory with standing forces that cannot just melt away into hideaways. Which means being willing to engage in a stand-up fight against US Federal forces.

The only way to do that is either to have equal amounts of weaponry (unlikely), or have ways of wiping out large amounts of Federal forces/holding under threat places loyal to DC/DC itself; only way to do that is with area-effect weaponry that cannot be shrugged off or easily neutralized by any Federal forces. That means nukes.

Which is why there won't be a civil war, and the political system won't be 'fixed' by force, or likely anything short of divine intervention. Look for hope outside the US political system, in the divine, and in things like what Musk is doing for the betterment of all humanity.

Click to expand...

You know, it's fascinating watching the theory of warfare you construct here. Part of me wants to dismiss it out of hand, but instead, let's actually try to make some sense out of this.

Point 1:
"that means taking and holding territory with standing forces that cannot just melt away into hideaways."
Why? Why do you have to have visible forces out there to hold territory?

Point 2:
"Which means being willing to engage in a stand-up fight against US Federal forces."
Why? Why do you need to do this?

Point 3:
"The only way to do that is either to have equal amounts of weaponry (unlikely)"
This one I particularly want to dismiss because it goes against not just the history of warfare, but also against what is now being demonstrated in Ukraine, but still, if you have a way to justify this, please do so.

Point 4:
"or have ways of wiping out large amounts of Federal forces/holding under threat places loyal to DC/DC itself; only way to do that is with area-effect weaponry that cannot be shrugged off or easily neutralized by any Federal forces. That means nukes."
Again, why?


I see a series of assertions just dropped out straight-up without justification. They contradict pretty much all military understanding for either 'blue force' or 'red force' doctrine, but maybe there's some critical element you've seen that I've missed that does make it work. If that's the case, I definitely want you to explain it to me.

LordsFire said:

You know, it's fascinating watching the theory of warfare you construct here. Part of me wants to dismiss it out of hand, but instead, let's actually try to make some sense out of this.

Point 1:
"that means taking and holding territory with standing forces that cannot just melt away into hideaways."
Why? Why do you have to have visible forces out there to hold territory?

Point 2:
"Which means being willing to engage in a stand-up fight against US Federal forces."
Why? Why do you need to do this?

Point 3:
"The only way to do that is either to have equal amounts of weaponry (unlikely)"
This one I particularly want to dismiss because it goes against not just the history of warfare, but also against what is now being demonstrated in Ukraine, but still, if you have a way to justify this, please do so.

Point 4:
"or have ways of wiping out large amounts of Federal forces/holding under threat places loyal to DC/DC itself; only way to do that is with area-effect weaponry that cannot be shrugged off or easily neutralized by any Federal forces. That means nukes."
Again, why?


I see a series of assertions just dropped out straight-up without justification. They contradict pretty much all military understanding for either 'blue force' or 'red force' doctrine, but maybe there's some critical element you've seen that I've missed that does make it work. If that's the case, I definitely want you to explain it to me.

Click to expand...

Because @Bacle's left-wing brain cannot grasp the concept of a right leaning insurgency.

EDIT: you have to understand @Bacle is rapidly turning into @Aaron Fox for some reason.

LordsFire said:

You know, it's fascinating watching the theory of warfare you construct here. Part of me wants to dismiss it out of hand, but instead, let's actually try to make some sense out of this.

Point 1:
"that means taking and holding territory with standing forces that cannot just melt away into hideaways."
Why? Why do you have to have visible forces out there to hold territory?

Click to expand...

If people want to do more than Wolverine's LARP for eternity, or till they are all killed piecemeal, they will need standing, uniform forces that actually answer to a gov other than DC.

LordsFire said:

Point 2:
"Which means being willing to engage in a stand-up fight against US Federal forces."
Why? Why do you need to do this?

Click to expand...

As above, unless people just want to do Wolverine's LARP, they will need to be able to take and hold ground against Federal forces.

LordsFire said:

Point 3:
"The only way to do that is either to have equal amounts of weaponry (unlikely)"
This one I particularly want to dismiss because it goes against not just the history of warfare, but also against what is now being demonstrated in Ukraine, but still, if you have a way to justify this, please do so.

Click to expand...

Because in Ukraine they are getting all those nice foreign howitzers, missiles, and drones; it's not a guerilla war, even if Ukrainian spec ops are doing guerilla shit behind the lines/across the Russian border.

LordsFire said:

Point 4:
"or have ways of wiping out large amounts of Federal forces/holding under threat places loyal to DC/DC itself; only way to do that is with area-effect weaponry that cannot be shrugged off or easily neutralized by any Federal forces. That means nukes."
Again, why?

Click to expand...

Because if they want to do more than LARP as Wolverine's till they die, rebels need a way to deter DC from just rolling armor columns or sweeping in with air power to pacify rebel areas, or just grind them to dust.

LordsFire said:

I see a series of assertions just dropped out straight-up without justification. They contradict pretty much all military understanding for either 'blue force' or 'red force' doctrine, but maybe there's some critical element you've seen that I've missed that does make it work. If that's the case, I definitely want you to explain it to me.

Click to expand...

I'm not one of the ones who keeps thinking that a 'guerilla war' will actually change shit or hold ground, as some think, nor am I one of those naive enough to believe that rebels could actually take and hold ground without having equal or near equal amounts of firepower on strategic level.

The One Char said:

Because @Bacle's left-wing brain cannot grasp the concept of a right leaning insurgency.

EDIT: you have to understand @Bacle is rapidly turning into @Aaron Fox for some reason.

Click to expand...

A 'right wing insurgency' wouldn't accomplish shit, besides letting some people die while they LARP as Wolverine's, unless they are willing and able to engage in stand-up fights against Federal forces in order to take and hold ground as a alternative gov to DC.

The fact this shit is so 'amazing' and 'unbelievable' to both of you is because you two still think a Second American Civil War would be either a rehash of the first, while disregarding tech advances on the battlefield, or would be some psuedo-Taliban/AQ insurgency that might be able to hurt Federal forces, but would never be able to take or hold ground as an alternative gov to DC.

I'm calling out the cope and 'wishful thinking' that many on the Right still indulge in with regards to another 'civil war' in modern America.

Bacle said:

A 'right wing insurgency' wouldn't accomplish shit, besides letting some people die while they LARP as Wolverine's, unless they are willing and able to engage in stand-up fights against Federal forces in order to take and hold ground as a alternative gov to DC.

The fact this shit is so 'amazing' and 'unbelievable' to both of you is because you two still think a Second American Civil War would be either a rehash of the first, while disregarding tech advances on the battlefield, or would be some psuedo-Taliban/AQ insurgency that might be able to hurt Federal forces, but would never be able to take or hold ground as an alternative gov to DC.

I'm calling out the cope and 'wishful thinking' that many on the Right still indulge in with regards to another 'civil war' in modern America.

Click to expand...

You're not 'calling out' anything. You're just constantly repeating the assertion 'you have to engage in stand-up fights against Federal forces.'

I'll ask it again, since apparently you missed the question earlier.

Why would an anti-federal uprising have to engage in stand-up fighting against federal forces?

What is it that makes this necessary? Why would it have to happen?

LordsFire said:

Why would an anti-federal uprising have to engage in stand-up fighting against federal forces?

Click to expand...

The better question is what would possess an insurgent to face government forces head on? That's not how guerrilla warfare works as every guerrilla leader knows they'd lose in a straight fight so they have to be cunning.

That's not to say the Federal Army would be a pushover, indeed it would be a truly formidable enemy (the bane of insurgencies are Commando Units), but to act like an insurgency wouldn't be a massive problem for government forces is folly.

Lord Sovereign said:

The better question is what would possess an insurgent to face government forces head on? That's not how guerrilla warfare works as every guerrilla leader knows they'd lose in a straight fight so they have to be cunning.

That's not to say the Federal Army would be a pushover, indeed it would be a truly formidable enemy (the bane of insurgencies are Commando Units), but to act like an insurgency wouldn't be a massive problem for government forces is folly.

Click to expand...

His entire argument seems to be based on some nebulous 'need' to have a pitched battle, which as you said, is the exact opposite of the point of guerrilla warfare. If he has some way of justifying that need, he has a point, but I have yet to see any indication he has any understanding of how warfare actually works.

LordsFire said:

His entire argument seems to be based on some nebulous 'need' to have a pitched battle, which as you said, is the exact opposite of the point of guerrilla warfare. If he has some way of justifying that need, he has a point, but I have yet to see any indication he has any understanding of how warfare actually works.

Click to expand...

I think his argument might be that in order to win the war outright you need to defeat government forces in the field, which isn't entirely untrue. Case in point of that is, after they got strong enough, the Continental Army went toe to toe with the redcoats.

The problem is that the insurgents would have spent years paving the way for that throw of the dice via guerrilla warfare, in which their ranks are swollen by experienced troops, so battle is given on their terms. And by then the enemy is usually so crippled and demoralised that they collapse in short order.

Lord Sovereign said:

I think his argument might be that in order to win the war outright you need to defeat government forces in the field, which isn't entirely untrue. Case in point of that is, after they got strong enough, the Continental Army went toe to toe with the redcoats.

Click to expand...

Exactly; a guerilla war does not actually accomplish what many on the Right want out of a 'civil war'.

What they want is to remove the corrupt powers in DC, which not something an insurgency can accomplish; that is something that can only happen with full on warfare that attempts to take, hold, and administer lands, not just melt into the civie population.

But many on the Right just want to do 'Wolverines' LARP, and do not think through how they would actually accomplish more than being a nuisance insurgency, because that means grappling with how to secure and control large amounts of modern military hardware (including nukes) and lands under the control of the DC gov.

Bacle said:

Exactly; a guerilla war does not actually accomplish what many on the Right want out of a 'civil war'.

What they want is to remove the corrupt powers in DC, which not something an insurgency can accomplish; that is something that can only happen with full on warfare that attempts to take, hold, and administer lands, not just melt into the civie population.

But many on the Right just want to do 'Wolverines' LARP, and do not think through how they would actually accomplish more than being a nuisance insurgency, because that means grappling with how to secure and control large amounts of modern military hardware (including nukes) and lands under the control of the DC gov.

Click to expand...

Whilst direct overthrow isn't something you can necessarily do without pitched battle, an insurgency can most certainly force the government to its knees and, perhaps, force a surrender or negotiations.

A factor being ignored here is the wider context. The economic policies of the establishment are staggeringly terrible. Literally a bad case of "après nous, le déluge". The establishment retains electoral power through sowing division. Blacks and hispanics have long been treated by the establishment as voting cattle, and a lot of the nonsense you see now -- the insane race baiting, the absurd ventures into psychotic race politics -- can at least in part be understood as desparate attempts to keep "OUR minorities" in their back pocket.

This is required because the economic stress is mounting, and the bag of goodies that they have historically used to buy votes is emptying out really rapidly. This brings forth the risk of working-class whites, working-class blacks and working-class latinos all finding common ground. All realising who their true enemy is. Said enemy wishes to prevent that, and has thus doubled down on sowing division by all available means.

That strategy will not work forever. When it does fail, when they do lose the ability to even fudge elections -- because the results will be too clear too fudge -- they'll drop the act and stop pretending to care about democracy. And then they'll hold onto their seats with naked force. That's when you get to civil war. But don't think of the American Civil War. Think of Weimar Germany, or perhaps the Spanish Civil War. That's a much more accurate picture of what to expect from such a situation.

Desperation, radicalism, partisanship, cynical opportunism and apocalyptic hedonism.

In such a case, the insurgents don't have to beat the army. They only have to last long enough for most of the army to defect to them. Which tends to happen when the already despised government can no longer even be relied upon to pay the soldiers at regular intervals...

Skallagrim said:

A factor being ignored here is the wider context. The economic policies of the establishment are staggeringly terrible. Literally a bad case of "après nous, le déluge".

Click to expand...

Oh absolutely. Civil War or not, this economic system won't survive past 2050. They've scarcely got fumes to keep it going as it is.

Bacle said:

Exactly; a guerilla war does not actually accomplish what many on the Right want out of a 'civil war'.

What they want is to remove the corrupt powers in DC, which not something an insurgency can accomplish; that is something that can only happen with full on warfare that attempts to take, hold, and administer lands, not just melt into the civie population.

But many on the Right just want to do 'Wolverines' LARP, and do not think through how they would actually accomplish more than being a nuisance insurgency, because that means grappling with how to secure and control large amounts of modern military hardware (including nukes) and lands under the control of the DC gov.

Click to expand...

You keep repeating these things as though repetition somehow makes them true. It doesn't.

Let me explain a few things to you:

1. Civilian logistics are very, very fragile. It doesn't take much to derail a train, knock out a power line, or block off a highway. I could do it with fifty bucks, a chainsaw, and an afternoon.
2. Major urban cities are massively dependent on constant influxes of bulk goods, especially food.
3. These facts combined mean that you do not need to take and occupy the capital. All you need is a few hundred irregulars in the area surrounding Washington DC to shut down fuel, water, food, and power. You don't even need to have any kind of direct military conflict.

Sure, the government facilities will have backups and stockpiles, but those are temporary solutions, and the rest of the population in those areas will be looking to the Fed to solve these problems, get power, water, and food shipments coming back in ASAP.

And these aren't easy problems to solve, either. There's hundreds of miles of power lines, rail lines, and highway that would need continuous protection. If you don't protect all of that, as soon as you repair one destroyed section, another can be taken out. If you're trying to protect that much spread out infrastructure, you have to penny-packet your soldiers out at the squad level, and that means that they are vulnerable to 'Wolverines' style ambushes and guerilla warfare.

Even when you do catch some of the irregulars, you're going to have a hell of a time catching them all.


What about modern technology has changed this?

LordsFire said:

1. Civilian logistics are very, very fragile. It doesn't take much to derail a train, knock out a power line, or block off a highway. I could do it with fifty bucks, a chainsaw, and an afternoon.
2. Major urban cities are massively dependent on constant influxes of bulk goods, especially food.
3. These facts combined mean that you do not need to take and occupy the capital. All you need is a few hundred irregulars in the area surrounding Washington DC to shut down fuel, water, food, and power. You don't even need to have any kind of direct military conflict.

Click to expand...

Literally just dump a sufficiently large rock or lump of concrete on a railway line, and that's rail travel in your area fucked for quite a few hours. God forbid the insurgents have a few sticks of dynamite with which they can really screw up a railway.

LordsFire said:

Even when you do catch some of the irregulars, you're going to have a hell of a time catching them all.

Click to expand...

Even if you get prisoners to interrogate, the insurgents can pack up everything and move at a moment's notice. It would take insane timing and precision to get one cell.

If you want an appropriate example of what a modern American civil war would likely look like, you don’t have to look very far afield.

I think a modern civil war in the US would be largely similar to the civil wars of the South and Central America’s.

This would take the form of brutal street by street fighting in areas where potential insurgents can’t melt into the countryside and insurgent groups of differing ideologies are close to each other.

Because a situation in which the right is popping off would likely see the left popping off as well, or vice versa. This means strikes against each other and retaliatory attacks in an urban environment.

Street by street, block by block, in apartment complexes, shopping malls, and suburban neighborhoods across the country, as the American citizenry tears at each other and any army or law enforcement sent in to try to stop it.

In the countryside it’s a simpler picture. The rural areas of the country are predominantly red. Any general revolt against the government is going to see the right dominate the backwoods. This means constant highway blockages, train derailments, power lines getting cut, potshots at any law enforcement that isn’t already on their side.

This will lead to further breakdown in the urban centers as the delicate transportation industry is disrupted, if not outright destroyed, and food and other important supplies either get delayed or are outright stolen by the insurgency.

Starvation would quickly become rampant and the insurgent groups in the cities would tear each other, and bystanders, apart with ever greater ferocity as supplies become ever more limited.

The feds aren’t going to nuke anything because, besides it being an outright stupid idea more likely to see the person giving that order killed than anything else, much of the federal government and state government apparatus would likely have outright disolved.

The army and law enforcement agencies will pick sides, and be busily tearing each other and opposing insurgent groups apart. Politicians and bureaucrats will quickly become a dying breed as they are most likely killed in their homes or strung up from street lamps.

TLDR? In short, a modern American civil war would likely see a nearly complete breakdown in social order, to the point that hundreds of thousands if not millions would be dead.

Including the people at the top.

But that’s just like, my opinion man.

StormEagle said:

If you want an appropriate example of what a modern American civil war would likely look like, you don’t have to look very far afield.

I think a modern civil war in the US would be largely similar to the civil wars of the South and Central America’s.

This would take the form of brutal street by street fighting in areas where potential insurgents can’t melt into the countryside and insurgent groups of differing ideologies are close to each other.

Because a situation in which the right is popping off would likely see the left popping off as well, or vice versa. This means strikes against each other and retaliatory attacks in an urban environment.

Street by street, block by block, in apartment complexes, shopping malls, and suburban neighborhoods across the country, as the American citizenry tears at each other and any army or law enforcement sent in to try to stop it.

In the countryside it’s a simpler picture. The rural areas of the country are predominantly red. Any general revolt against the government is going to see the right dominate the backwoods. This means constant highway blockages, train derailments, power lines getting cut, potshots at any law enforcement that isn’t already on their side.

This will lead to further breakdown in the urban centers as the delicate transportation industry is disrupted, if not outright destroyed, and food and other important supplies either get delayed or are outright stolen by the insurgency.

Starvation would quickly become rampant and the insurgent groups in the cities would tear each other, and bystanders, apart with ever greater ferocity as supplies become ever more limited.

The feds aren’t going to nuke anything because, besides it being an outright stupid idea more likely to see the person giving that order killed than anything else, much of the federal government and state government apparatus would likely have outright disolved.

The army and law enforcement agencies will pick sides, and be busily tearing each other and opposing insurgent groups apart. Politicians and bureaucrats will quickly become a dying breed as they are most likely killed in their homes or strung up from street lamps.

TLDR? In short, a modern American civil war would likely see a nearly complete breakdown in social order, to the point that hundreds of thousands if not millions would be dead.

Including the people at the top.

But that’s just like, my opinion man.

Click to expand...

Which isn't even getting into what other countries would do in response to a second American civil war; many of our current "allies" won't be able to resist trying to come to the aid of our establishment (indeed; many of the people at the top will likely flee there to drum up support for exactly that), which in turn will likely drag them into civil wars of their own.

at the risk of sounding like a troll. Why are we talking about this? seriously what is the point of having this conversation if we are going to do frick all about it?

KilroywasNOTHere said:

at the risk of sounding like a troll. Why are we talking about this? seriously what is the point of having this conversation if we are going to do frick all about it?

Click to expand...

To figure out how and where to hunker down when the fighting actually starts because when it actually goes off we will all be feeble and old.

Bacle said:

And this isn't about the US gov being 'evil' or dooming, it's about recognizing the realities of what modern weaponry in the US arsenal means for any sort of conflict resembling the first ACW, and being willing to admit what a lot of Boogalo peeps don't want to address; if they want to do more than play an eternal game of "Wolverines", that means taking and holding territory with standing forces that cannot just melt away into hideaways. Which means being willing to engage in a stand-up fight against US Federal forces.

The only way to do that is either to have equal amounts of weaponry (unlikely), or have ways of wiping out large amounts of Federal forces/holding under threat places loyal to DC/DC itself; only way to do that is with area-effect weaponry that cannot be shrugged off or easily neutralized by any Federal forces. That means nukes.

Click to expand...

given the number of right wing veterans and the number of active servicemen and servicewomen who are sick of Brainless Biden's BS, at least half the US Armed Forces will defect or just refuse to fight against a rebellion.

National Guard and rural law enforcement (sheriffs) in red states will straight up go over to the rebellion once given the command

Bacle said:

Which is why there won't be a civil war, and the political system won't be 'fixed' by force, or likely anything short of divine intervention. Look for hope outside the US political system, in the divine, and in things like what Musk is doing for the betterment of all humanity.

Click to expand...

there will be and all it needs is a spark.

then, the purifying fire shall burn through USA and destroy all that is evil and corrupted

thus ushering you guys into a new era, a USA led by the divine might of the SUPREME MAGA KING!

StormEagle said:

If you want an appropriate example of what a modern American civil war would likely look like, you don’t have to look very far afield.

I think a modern civil war in the US would be largely similar to the civil wars of the South and Central America’s.

This would take the form of brutal street by street fighting in areas where potential insurgents can’t melt into the countryside and insurgent groups of differing ideologies are close to each other.

Because a situation in which the right is popping off would likely see the left popping off as well, or vice versa. This means strikes against each other and retaliatory attacks in an urban environment.

Street by street, block by block, in apartment complexes, shopping malls, and suburban neighborhoods across the country, as the American citizenry tears at each other and any army or law enforcement sent in to try to stop it.

In the countryside it’s a simpler picture. The rural areas of the country are predominantly red. Any general revolt against the government is going to see the right dominate the backwoods. This means constant highway blockages, train derailments, power lines getting cut, potshots at any law enforcement that isn’t already on their side.

This will lead to further breakdown in the urban centers as the delicate transportation industry is disrupted, if not outright destroyed, and food and other important supplies either get delayed or are outright stolen by the insurgency.

Starvation would quickly become rampant and the insurgent groups in the cities would tear each other, and bystanders, apart with ever greater ferocity as supplies become ever more limited.

The feds aren’t going to nuke anything because, besides it being an outright stupid idea more likely to see the person giving that order killed than anything else, much of the federal government and state government apparatus would likely have outright disolved.

The army and law enforcement agencies will pick sides, and be busily tearing each other and opposing insurgent groups apart. Politicians and bureaucrats will quickly become a dying breed as they are most likely killed in their homes or strung up from street lamps.

TLDR? In short, a modern American civil war would likely see a nearly complete breakdown in social order, to the point that hundreds of thousands if not millions would be dead.

Including the people at the top.

But that’s just like, my opinion man.

Click to expand...

the right wing rebellion will have lots of veterans and probably a good chunk of rural law enforcement and a majority of the US military on its side.

it will be a swift and devastating series of decapitation strikes followed by sieges of "blue" shitholes that end in the left literally eating each other

but such is life in the zone

Bacle said:

Look, people here go on and on about a second civil war without really wanting to admit what that would mean, if they truly aim to go as far as some want.

Click to expand...

Bacle, three drunks and a racist parrot paralyzed one of the largest counties in Cali with a pair of BB Guns.

The danger is not that the Federal Government would nuke its own cities or someshit, when most of the urban areas are where they would derive all their power and resources, human or otherwise from. That isn't happening.

The problem is any modern ACW results in the Urbanites starving to death in numbers no one can fathom and in warlordism from dishonest, corrupt and partisan base commanders.

Nuclear Fiefdoms and a gigantic free for all clusterfuck are more likely than the Elite retaining power.

It would be an absolute disaster, we'd become England pre-Norman invasion but with nukes and the whole world would go into an economic dark age that would likely result in a technological role back to the damn 1950's.

But the Central Authority, who derives almost all of their power, legitimacy and force from human bughives that can be turned into riotous conflagrations the moment some trucker bros stop shipping their monthly supply of soy and Xanax and two or three trade bros decide to yeet an electrical grid...is not surviving the first six months of any engagement.

The Union won because it had all the food, all the factories and an endless supply of Irish refugees to throw at the enemy and they still almost lost.

The problem isn't Washington.

The problem is King Gomer of house Pyle of the Kingdom of Homestead, Miami and the Florida Keys.

And Earl Tyrone Butler the Third "The unlucky" of the house of Butler and the Yarldom of rando Cali base and what they, their loyal boys and their ICBM's will do.

The One Char said:

Because @Bacle's left-wing brain cannot grasp the concept of a right leaning insurgency.

EDIT: you have to understand @Bacle is rapidly turning into @Aaron Fox for some reason.

Click to expand...

People on both sides of this debate like to pretend the people who are running our world into the ground are unstoppable evil shadow men..not..demented boomers who've been abusing mind altering substances since for over half a century whose middle management crew are either all mentally retarded or absolute thugs out for themselves.

The left also likes to think that the US Government will just nuke cities and that'll end it. Or send M1-Abrams uptown into the burbs and no one can resist that.

They assume this because they don't understand nothing on the coast can survive without rural America, or roads.

And time and time again our dangerously neglected infrastructure has been spazzed out to national crisis levels by the most mundane of things.

Again a civil war is a disastrous idea, a real shitty one but a right wing insurgency would likely win inside of a year only to then have to fight every single corrupt piece of Maoist shit inside the US military who will promptly betray what's left of his country to set up his own kingdom.

StormEagle said:

TLDR? In short, a modern American civil war would likely see a nearly complete breakdown in social order, to the point that hundreds of thousands if not millions would be dead.

Including the people at the top.

But that’s just like, my opinion man.

Click to expand...