What ‘orbital assets’?! This isn’t command and conquer, only thing in orbit are communications satellites and the like! And it’s not like there aren’t airports in the red parts of the USA.
Comm sats, spy sats, and probably more that is under black ink. Just the comms and spy sats already give who controls them a massive advantage in coordination and response.
Having airports is not the same thing as having air power, and the AF is one of the most Woke branchs; unless you are banking on Naval Air coming to the red side, I do not see the reds having any way to meaninfully contest air space or deal with orbital assets.
The fantasy of the red interior being able to starve out and wage actual open conflict against the blue areas, and not end up being seriously hampered by air power loyal to the 'official' powers, is something born in a misguided notion that any future civil conflict would be like the Revolution or ACW. It won't be.
Any organized, open conflict on US soil would first and foremost be a scramble by both sides to secure nukes, ports, production facilities, energy generation, and raw resources.
A bushwhacking insurgency would be a nuisance on the interior, but wouldn't be enough to hold of the blues if they hold the major production and port areas.
You do know there are plenty of ways to contact other without phone right?
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
A lot of things can be imported, but food is the biggest problem. The USA is the largest exporter of food in the world; if there's a civil war and coastal cities are trying to source food from elsewhere, who are they going to import it from? They'll be able to bring in some, but they have to make up not just for what they aren't getting from the interior anymore, but they're also suddenly competing to buy in a market that has had its' biggest provider dry up.
If an actual hot civil war breaks out, the 'red states' and red areas aren't going to have the same kind of need for imports. Food is an urgent and immediate need, one which can make you lose the conflict in days and weeks. The only other things that can make you lose so quickly if you run out are water, ammunition, and fuel.
Of these, rural areas already use their own wells and pumps, and most people who own firearms stockpile hundreds to thousands of rounds of ammunition. Fuel is a genuine concern, but oil industry tends to be centered in conservative-dominant areas as well, so it's not an immediately resolved issue one way or the other.
What would happen to the military is way too much of a toss-up to definitively call either way. Even with how much the left has been trying to ram their agenda into the military lately, it has a strong preponderance towards conservatism, especially the combat arms. Acting like the left would have it as a foregone conclusion is silliness.
The reason that people keep bringing up the food issue, is because unlike war in the 1860's, where we were still a primarily agrarian nation and most people either fed themselves, or lived within walking distance of the people that produced the food they purchased, most people in the modern day have no clue how to go from 'raw materials' to 'food I can eat.'
People generally only keep enough food in their house to last a few days to a week before they're eating plain canned beans, if they have that. Grocery stores with supply shipments cut off will be out of 'preferred' stock in a day or two, and completely stripped bare within a week, if people don't go raiding to stockpile food.
Practically speaking, two weeks is the amount of time it would take where food goes from 'this is a problem we need solved in the near future' to 'there are food riots in the street.'
Two weeks isn't long enough to whip a competent militia into shape, that could go out and try to seize crops or live-stock. If you have people who are capable of recognizing a problem, formulating a solution, and acting quickly and decisively, you could have a loosely-controlled armed mob going out to try to do the same by then, but...
The modern left isn't exactly known for their institutional competence or ability to act quickly and decisively, is it?
In the end, there are too many factors in play to know how a civil war in the USA would go. It's been 160 years since we last had one, and the automobile didn't exist back then, much less the airplane, the automatic rifle, the radio, the internet, etc. There's too many factors in play, that have never been tested in a civil war type of conflict, to say anything with any real certainty.
There's a certain weight though, to 'these people know how to produce their own food and use it, and these other people do not.' If any conflict lasts long enough, that'll be pretty damned decisive in its own right. If.
Honestly, I'm starting to think regional control of the electrical grid will probably be more decisive. If someone decides to start shutting off power to other areas, there's not a lot of incentive for the people in that area not to then blow up major transmission hubs or power plants. If that happens, pretty much everyone in the region is screwed.
No shit there are; was that supposed to be a trick question?
Sneaky comms do not make up for lack of production, energy generation, high grade weapons, port facilities, and international supplies/aid.
If we have reached the point of open conflict between organized units on following two separate US powerbases/govs, the shit that works for a backwoods insurgency ain't gonna cut it.
And if all the reds can manage in an civil conflict to be insurgencts instead of open, declared units, civic and military victory is impossible, and there is no point to violent resistance at all.
We are in an age of 4th/5th gen warfare, and need to realize any 'victory' we wish to achieve, and make stick beyond 4-8 years, is something the next generation's kids are the ones who will see the fruits of it, not us.
The blues marched through the institutions while the reds were content to grill, watch NASCAR, collect guns, and protest abortion. Then the reds let Bush Jr. completely destroy the GOP's national cred; it took a NY Dem in Trump, and the Left going full Color Revolution while trying to put Hillary in office, to save the GOP from it's own idiocy. And that may only have staved off the worst for 4 years, while it gave the blues an excuse to turn the Patriot Act against it's creators, and what amounts to damn near a Reichstag Fire level causus belli against the GOP base and a lot of the third party/independents/disillusioned Dems as well.
Hillary wanted to turn Trump into a 'Pied Piper for the Right' during her campaign, because she was confident she couldn't lose, and thought Trump was more objectionable to the US populace than her. She was wrong about the last part, but she may have turned Trump into a 'Pied Piper' for the reds in general, and counted on her friends in DC to neuter Trump's effectiveness.
The blues may lost 4 years of control, but with the stolen election and Wu Flu, now they have all their ducks damn near in a row for effective permanent control of the nation, and people think they can recreate 1776 or 1860 without at least having their own nukes, production facilities, ports, energy generation, and international support...it's farcical.
You are correct, an extended war favors those with more local food production. But that is a massive IF.
It also assumes the crops aren't napalmed, or worse, by opposing forces during retreats or raids.
You are however correct that there are too many unknowns to say for certain what side would have what assets, or even how the sides would be formed, and who would join what side.
Now that bit about the electrical grid is why I think any future civil conflict will heavily be focused on control over Texas, and it's separate grid and infrastructure. A lot of political money is being spent by both sides in Texas, because both sides know that keeping it, or flipping it, will likely be the difference between victory and defeat in the long term.
You really think a civil war in the US will have the US Military napalming people?
I will pull a Han Solo if I am paid enough in stuff like gold or silver.
The northern border is majority connected to red areas..I will pull a Han Solo if I am paid enough in stuff like gold or silver.
Actually they can't.
A cargo ship averages 10-20 days for an ocean crossing, and that's for "cargo" that has already been ordered and readied to ship. Further the bulk supplies they would need are already spoken for. Which means they would have to take it out of another countries mouth at highly marked up prices.
So, you're looking at probably 1-2 months at a minimum before they could start making up the supply deficit.
But this is of course forgetting that a US civil war would cause the Stock Market to crash wiping out the money those Blue area's would need to actually purchase the goods.
Naplam their crops as a denial measure if they cannot secure them for their own supplies, sure.
How much napalm do you think we have?
Enough, and the knowledge/resources to make more, if needed.
In a civil war?
Nit really. First things people will target
Megadeath
Well-known member
Any American civil war 2.0 would be largely decided within a week, 2 at most and almost entirely by how the armed forces split. Even if the split is fairly even somehow and the US armed forces end up a tenth their size, that tenth is enough to make actual organised armed resistance by whichever side doesn't have a-10s, cruise missiles and tanks irrelevant. Sure there could be groups of armed lunatics hiding in the Appalachian range, or clandestine cells living in the cities afterwards, but there won't be anything like a war.
Obviously how the armed forces would split is kind of unanswerable, and comes down to the factors that cause the hypothetical split in the first place. Like, if BLM/ANTIFA riots somehow escalated to the point of attempted insurgency and insurrection then the armed forces are going to be on one side. If say Texas decides they want to secede because congress outlaw rifles with a certain calibre and a few other states tried to join them, you'd probably see the forces break largely in the other direction.
Obviously how the armed forces would split is kind of unanswerable, and comes down to the factors that cause the hypothetical split in the first place. Like, if BLM/ANTIFA riots somehow escalated to the point of attempted insurgency and insurrection then the armed forces are going to be on one side. If say Texas decides they want to secede because congress outlaw rifles with a certain calibre and a few other states tried to join them, you'd probably see the forces break largely in the other direction.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Yet somehow, crazed lunatics in Afghanistan with even fewer resources and less ability to blend into the population kept the US military tied up for 20 years. And in Iraq before that.... and in Vietnam before that...
All of those had outside help, from Russia, China, Iran, and Pakistan or a mix of them.
Don't bet on them supporting or supplying any groups in the US that aren't blue, and do not think their involvement would likely be a 'good thing' if it happened.
Also, nukes were never really in play with Vietnam, Iraq, or A-stan; not the case if shit goes real here.
You all can think Biden was joking about nukes and F-15's, but he was getting to the core of the reality many on the Right don't like to admit exists.
Air power and nukes changed the playing field for 'revolutions/rebellions' being successful, and there isn't much civies have which can meaningfully threaten air craft or orbital assets. Unless the US military splits nearly 50 personnel and material wise, reds wouldn't be able to do more than an insurgency that would be stuck in the boondocks, while the blues control nearly everything else.
An insurgency in the backwoods will not restore our Republic at that point, it would just stretch it out the death a bit.
Unless you can get open, uniformed, formal forces that can take and hold ground with integrated AA and all the accoutrements of modern warfare, and a separate governing body with logsitics and infrastructure to go with them once ground is taken, you'll just turn the US into Syria writ large, AT BEST.
A lot of those can only be used so much.
If a split happens both sides will get equipment, who ever is more willing...
Megadeath
Well-known member
It's inaccurate to say they "kept the US military tied up". They managed to survive and occasionally mildly harass a small part of the US armed forces. To pretend that their was any kind of equality in their military positions is ridiculous.
Yeah... I think I said that? Both sides will get some equipment, with the breakdown decided by imponderables. And then they'll use it to smash the other sides equipment, and in very short order only one side will have any meaningful amount.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
No one's pretending there was any equality. In point of fact, the extreme inequality, combined with the fact the US wound up running away from their supposed lessers, just like Iraq, and just like Vietnam, is the entire point.
Confuscious Say: Do not use a cannon to kill a mosquito.
The number of cannons you have is irrelevant if your enemy is a swarm of mosquitos, and you have no bug spray.