2nd Civil War Theorycrafting Thread, Peaches Free

[Harlock]

In a situation like that it wouldn't be the regular army you'd be facing, they wouldn't use their tanks to put down an insurgency as they'd be busy fighting other tanks and regular forces. It would be one bunch of irregulars vs another group of irregulars, something more like Einsatzgruppen.
This is where you get the African style of war which is small armed groups killing each other, and more often the families of each other. With the army busy and law enforcement dead or acting as a militia the land will be ruled by these irregulars. Lets hope they don't use it as an excuse to settle scores or get rich in the power vacuum.

For every armed group fighting for a cause you'll have another one fighting for themselves. If you think Americans are too civilised to form rape gangs like Africa sees then I fear human nature will disappoint

 

[LordsFire]

In a situation like that it wouldn't be the regular army you'd be facing, they wouldn't use their tanks to put down an insurgency as they'd be busy fighting other tanks and regular forces. It would be one bunch of irregulars vs another group of irregulars, something more like Einsatzgruppen.
This is where you get the African style of war which is small armed groups killing each other, and more often the families of each other. With the army busy and law enforcement dead or acting as a militia the land will be ruled by these irregulars. Lets hope they don't use it as an excuse to settle scores or get rich in the power vacuum.

For every armed group fighting for a cause you'll have another one fighting for themselves. If you think Americans are too civilised to form rape gangs like Africa sees then I fear human nature will disappoint

Not too civilized for it not to happen, I do believe it would happen less though.

 

[Megadeath]

And unlike when fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam, your airbases and military factories are within walking distance, and making bathtub-bombs is not actually very difficult.

Since military planners aren't complete morons, their bases and airfields generally aren't plonked in the middle of residential areas, shoulder to shoulder with houses. Go look up Nellis or Beale AFB, and tell me how you're getting anywhere near the facilities across all that open ground before they shoot you?

This is a problem that top-end extremely-expensive satellite surveillance can solve... if the terrain is open and it isn't cloudy. This is a problem that drones can't solve, because drones are a lot bigger and more expensive than skeet, just as fragile, and easier to hit.

IR sensors (and other types) on satellites do not need open ground or clear days. Those might be useful for visual sensors, but they really don't need those to find insurgents hiding in woods. I'm also curious just what the hell kinda skeet you've been shooting that make you think you can hit say the global hawk drone, operating at over 60,000 feet and travelling more than 600kph? And yes, it can easily find people hiding in caves or cabins in the woods while doing that.

 

[AnimalNoodles]

No, they'd just need to drop a few nukes on any logistical hubs that they lose control of or that act as rallying points of any effective opposition, and it'd send a big message about who is top dog.

I mean, am I the only one who remembers Swalwell threating the same shit a while back, and not seeming to play around. Any group that want to have a hope of taking control of meaningful territory and holding it in such a way they are more than an annoyance would also be enough of a threat to justify breaking out nukes.

A backwoods insurgency will not save anything, will justify even more tyrannical shit, and won't have the power to accomplish anything long term. Only open, standing, formal units and gov structures could offer a legit alternative, and the second one of those becomes a real threat, the gloves will come off.

This isn't 1776 or 1860, just having small arms and survival skills doesn't mean much if you want to the efforts to be more than a backwood insurgency and actually restore the Republic. Do not count of the military splitting in such a way that hardware is even close to even on both sides, and do not count on the AF or Space Force to be likely have many members side with the reds, and do not count on boomer crews to take orders from anyone other than DC.

The point of the insurgent is not to defeat regular armies. Thats not possible. Instead, the Insurgent seeks to make society as ungovernable as he can.

The insurgent doesnt seek to kill tank armies. He seeks to make it impossible to support tanks.
The insurgent cant defeat aircraft. But he can wreck the infrastructure to support those aircraft
The insurgent cant defeat armies one on one. But he can wreck the system that supports, supplies and raises those armies.

Once that is done, the insurgent is on a much more even footing with the state.

 

[LordsFire]

Since military planners aren't complete morons, their bases and airfields generally aren't plonked in the middle of residential areas, shoulder to shoulder with houses. Go look up Nellis or Beale AFB, and tell me how you're getting anywhere near the facilities across all that open ground before they shoot you?


IR sensors (and other types) on satellites do not need open ground or clear days. Those might be useful for visual sensors, but they really don't need those to find insurgents hiding in woods. I'm also curious just what the hell kinda skeet you've been shooting that make you think you can hit say the global hawk drone, operating at over 60,000 feet and travelling more than 600kph? And yes, it can easily find people hiding in caves or cabins in the woods while doing that.

Ambiguity in terminology is a problem for the second. I meant the sort of small drones that you see in both civilian and now military use. The big stuff that flies at high altitudes is a very different story, of course. There's an ongoing argument that small drones would be hell on insurgent action, because swarms of them are very hard to deal with using most contemporary AA platforms. That's the issue I was addressing.


If you have awareness of some sort of regarding satellite capabilities that can usefully see through forest canopies and cloud cover, feel free to show me what you're talking about. I certainly am not familiar with such.

 

[Bacle]

The point of the insurgent is not to defeat regular armies. Thats not possible. Instead, the Insurgent seeks to make society as ungovernable as he can.

The insurgent doesnt seek to kill tank armies. He seeks to make it impossible to support tanks.
The insurgent cant defeat aircraft. But he can wreck the infrastructure to support those aircraft
The insurgent cant defeat armies one on one. But he can wreck the system that supports, supplies and raises those armies.

Once that is done, the insurgent is on a much more even footing with the state.

Notice that list doesn't include CVNs or boomers, which can get supplies and repairs at friendly ports elsewhere than CONUS?

It also doesn't include friendly forces, which include all those nice flattops Japan, England, and the Aussie's have. Or the port facilities that come with them.

 

[Marduk]

Since military planners aren't complete morons, their bases and airfields generally aren't plonked in the middle of residential areas, shoulder to shoulder with houses. Go look up Nellis or Beale AFB, and tell me how you're getting anywhere near the facilities across all that open ground before they shoot you?

Of all things to bring up, it shows how little you know about the topic you talk about.
Of all airbases in the world, US ones are built for effectiveness in operations, not protection, with the implication that if they do get attacked it's gonna be a strategic nuclear warhead (or few) so why bother, better focus on getting the last planes into the air before it arrives, unlike the famously fortified airbases built in Europe near former Iron Curtain, Israel and Arab countries, meant to be able to resist some amount of conventional warfare and tactical nukes.

An airbase like this is effectively out of action the moment its runway and parking areas turn out to be within the range of enemy sniper fire or even light artillery.
I could link to military manuals (mentioned in the article), but to make a point, i will link you to what a pro gun control NGO thinks of .50 cal rifles and their many uses.

https://vpc.org/publications/sitting-ducks/sitting-ducks-section-one-the-capability-of-the-50-caliber-sniper-rifle/

 

[Battlegrinder]

Ok, New thread is done.

first off all, Hello, various federal agencies. You Suck.

Secondly:

Notice that list doesn't include CVNs or boomers, which can get supplies and repairs at friendly ports elsewhere than CONUS?

It also doesn't include friendly forces, which include all those nice flattops Japan, England, and the Aussie's have. Or the port facilities that come with them.

We've enjoyed air superiority in every war we've fought since aircraft existed, and in most of them we had outright air supremacy particularly in the various post WW2 conflicts. It won exactly none of those wars.

Moreover, you're missing the wider point. The insurgent faction won't have spy satellites, but they have the NRO's address, and one assault means the Federal faction loses a lot of its spy satellite capability as well. Civil wars are always far more dangerous to government than any sort of foreign conflict, because a civil war means all of the state's valuable infrastructure is under threat.

 

[Circle of Willis]

I recall seeing a couple 4channers throwing around estimates of how a modern 2ACW would shake out a few years ago.

Tl;dr of these posts' most important points IMO is that 1) the US power grid is apparently rather vulnerable, 2) the odds that the armed forces would remain united are pretty much nonexistent, 3) gov't-loyal forces would not be able to simultaneously fight enemies to their right in the countryside while also controlling opportunistic/grievance-fueled enemies to their left in the cities, 4) geography doesn't favor Team Blue, 5) foreign involvement in helping all sides is practically a given, 6) manpower and not fancy shock-and-awe weapons is what's critical to maintaining control and 7) nukes are absolutely off the table, even in defeat, unless one side turns out to be led by a death cult more interested in killing everyone (including themselves) than making even the tiniest effort to rule the country.

How accurately would you Americans say these posts hold up in Current Year™?

(As a Canadian with Republican-voting relatives in Georgia, my own stake in a 2ACW is limited to hoping they make it out of there with the inevitable refugee streams, unless they elect to throw themselves into the fight - and also that China doesn't decide to use Canada as a springboard for flooding the northern US with 'volunteers' for Team Blue. And rolling out the welcome mat if Team Red should prevail and decide to polish off the Trudeau regime so the PRC can't continue screwing with them through him, of course)

 

[AnimalNoodles]

Notice that list doesn't include CVNs or boomers, which can get supplies and repairs at friendly ports elsewhere than CONUS?

It also doesn't include friendly forces, which include all those nice flattops Japan, England, and the Aussie's have. Or the port facilities that come with them.

CVNs arent much use against people in rocky mountains. And the point of an insurgency is to reduce infrastructure to the point where the boomers and carriers can no longer be supported.

 

[Zachowon]

I am not advocating for a Civil war and I am heavily against jt.

I just wanna add that should a civil war happen, the military will be faced with a choice. Prevent our enemies from taking advantage of this, or fight our brothers and sisters.

 

[Harlock]

Question is how do you define an enemy? It is fairly unlikely a conflict happens because the government does something cacklingly evil, more likely it is a gradual process as different groups snap one by one starting with the extremes and accelerating the closer it gets to the centre.

So if you do have a group threatening to shut down say LA and starve a couple million people is that the enemy? Even if you align with the politics of one side and not the other if you are ordered to prevent the deaths of millions of innocent Americans by shooting those trying to commit mass murder, do you go for it?
I mean not you specifically, I mean anyone in uniform. When does the military decide to let people die in vast numbers and for what reason?

Sure if Putin's Shock Divisions try and Red Dawn everyone thats an easy fight with a clear enemy, but how do you define that domestic enemy? Their beliefs or their actions?

 

[Zachowon]

Question is how do you define an enemy? It is fairly unlikely a conflict happens because the government does something cacklingly evil, more likely it is a gradual process as different groups snap one by one starting with the extremes and accelerating the closer it gets to the centre.

So if you do have a group threatening to shut down say LA and starve a couple million people is that the enemy? Even if you align with the politics of one side and not the other if you are ordered to prevent the deaths of millions of innocent Americans by shooting those trying to commit mass murder, do you go for it?
I mean not you specifically, I mean anyone in uniform. When does the military decide to let people die in vast numbers and for what reason?

Sure if Putin's Shock Divisions try and Red Dawn everyone thats an easy fight with a clear enemy, but how do you define that domestic enemy? Their beliefs or their actions?

I mean the military would need to focus on a foreign enemy. Knowing the division would allow the enemies to strike at us or our allies

 

[Captain X]

I would caution against underestimating the domestic threat of antifa and other similar groups, incidentally. There are plenty of them that are armed and willing to use their weapons. The news cameras naturally shy away from showing the guys running around with guns at these "mostly peaceful protests" or claim that they're right-wingers, but they're there. We actually got a couple of small demonstrations of that by a guy in Portland who gunned down a Trump supporter who had been outed on social media and ambushed, and that guy who was at first claimed to be a Pinkerton in Denver who shot a guy that was holding a big can of pepper spray, basically for slapping him when he tried to get said can of pepper spray away from him.

I find it more likely that this is the irregular force that would be fielded on the ground, in large part due to the government being able to deny involvement. They already have a track record of using Big Tech to censor political opponents, using them as a proxy so as to deny the fact that they're violating the Constitution because "muh private business." At least at first. These people would also be able to blend in with local populaces.

 

[AnimalNoodles]

I would caution against underestimating the domestic threat of antifa and other similar groups, incidentally. There are plenty of them that are armed and willing to use their weapons. The news cameras naturally shy away from showing the guys running around with guns at these "mostly peaceful protests" or claim that they're right-wingers, but they're there. We actually got a couple of small demonstrations of that by a guy in Portland who gunned down a Trump supporter who had been outed on social media and ambushed, and that guy who was at first claimed to be a Pinkerton in Denver who shot a guy that was holding a big can of pepper spray, basically for slapping him when he tried to get said can of pepper spray away from him.

I find it more likely that this is the irregular force that would be fielded on the ground, in large part due to the government being able to deny involvement. They already have a track record of using Big Tech to censor political opponents, using them as a proxy so as to deny the fact that they're violating the Constitution because "muh private business." At least at first. These people would also be able to blend in with local populaces.

Antifa has elite support, and this has enabled it to become very influential in certain areas precisely by making them ungovernable by authorities they do not support.

 

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Our population is so domesticated, they would never fight for anything. If violence breaks out, it won't be because people are forming armies or anything. At best you'll have very small groups trying to assassinate key members of the establishment, hoping to intimidate their replacements into not making bad decisions.

Best hope for the downfall of the American Empire is that it faces the same fate as the Soviet Union: becomes too inefficient, too laden with bureaucracy, too weak and too expensive to maintain, that it ultimately just can't function any longer. That will be the opportunity for localities to establish their independence. There is the chance that the establishment goes the China route and manages to create a stable, enduring regime, but fortunately we have a lot more factors going against that.

Long term the left establishment just has an inherently self destructive ideology and quite frankly their not having kids or reproducing and are alienating every one around them.

That's not a power block that can survive multiple generations its a power block that lasts until they run out of money to loot and with a global credit crunch starting next year their days are numbered.

True, the Left do not have big families, but people keep sending their kids off to public schools to be reeducated by the Left.

 

[AnimalNoodles]

Our population is so domesticated, they would never fight for anything. If violence breaks out, it won't be because people are forming armies or anything. At best you'll have very small groups trying to assassinate key members of the establishment, hoping to intimidate their replacements into not making bad decisions.

Best hope for the downfall of the American Empire is that it faces the same fate as the Soviet Union: becomes too inefficient, too laden with bureaucracy, too weak and too expensive to maintain, that it ultimately just can't function any longer. That will be the opportunity for localities to establish their independence. There is the chance that the establishment goes the China route and manages to create a stable, enduring regime, but fortunately we have a lot more factors going against that.

The system is too dogmatic, too tied to bioleninism and anarchotyranny to create organic stability. It justifies its existence through a process of perpetual revolution, which means it cannot create order, only laws and repression. There is always a new phobia to struggle against, a new ism to fight, new inequities to combat.

True, the Left do not have big families, but people keep sending their kids off to public schools to be reeducated by the Left.

The left imports its armies.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

If anything the biggest danger to the Rebels in this instance, even the woodsmen, would be commandos. Small, highly mobile forces that can go off the grid and survive quite nicely, they are almost woodsmen themselves except far better equipped and with a stronger chain of command. If the government can keep control of those sections of the army, they can use them with ruthless efficiency.

 

[Zachowon]

If anything the biggest danger to the Rebels in this instance, even the woodsmen, would be commandos. Small, highly mobile forces that can go off the grid and survive quite nicely, they are almost woodsmen themselves except far better equipped and with a stronger chain of command. If the government can keep control of those sections of the army, they can use them with ruthless efficiency.

They are often right wing and not left wing

 

[Lord Sovereign]

They are often right wing and not left wing

I reckoned as much, but this would be a hypothetical scenario. As I understand it, (much as it was in the American War of Independence), dedicated light infantry/commandos make absolute mincemeat of irregular guerrillas.