2nd Civil War Theorycrafting Thread, Peaches Free

[Firebat]

It would be an economic disaster that ends with nukes flying via other countries

It might be flattering to think "Apres moi, le deluge", but that is no way a realistic. There would be a downturn until remaining pieces of US economy either flee or re-integrate into world economy as individual pieces, but that's hardly the end of the world.
Similarly, there would be no nukes flying via other countries - simply because there would be no reason for anyone (save perhaps the belligerents) to launch them. Nukes are reserved for existential threats to a state when everything is on the line. What existential interest would UK, France, Israel, Russia, China, India or Pakistan have to preserve in a war in the other hemisphere?
Now, it is possible that American civil war parties would attempt to nuke each other, but that would be an internal problem of US citizens. And probably not the most pressing one since famine and refugee crisis in Canada and Mexico would murder more people than half-hearted and disorganized attempts to launch a nuke here or there.

 

[Zachowon]

It might be flattering to think "Apres moi, le deluge", but that is no way a realistic. There would be a downturn until remaining pieces of US economy either flee or re-integrate into world economy as individual pieces, but that's hardly the end of the world.
Similarly, there would be no nukes flying via other countries - simply because there would be no reason for anyone (save perhaps the belligerents) to launch them. Nukes are reserved for existential threats to a state when everything is on the line. What existential interest would UK, France, Israel, Russia, China, India or Pakistan have to preserve in a war in the other hemisphere?
Now, it is possible that American civil war parties would attempt to nuke each other, but that would be an internal problem of US citizens. And probably not the most pressing one since famine and refugee crisis in Canada and Mexico would murder more people than half-hearted and disorganized attempts to launch a nuke here or there.

Because the US economy would crash hard. China would then crash as would Russia and damn near EVERY country in the world.
Countries would start going after each other.
Nukes will fly because the US isn't there to stop them.

A US second civil war will not be a US only war. Other countries will get involved, if they aren't trying to save their own asses. Factories will be targeted. Production centers will dry up. ETC ETC.

This wont be like the last civil war. No major first world country has had a civil war while as a Super Power. The world would basically suffer should we have one.

 

[Firebat]

Because the US economy would crash hard. China would then crash as would Russia and damn near EVERY country in the world.

"It would crash because it would crash" is an unbeatable logic, but it's not 1950 anymore. It's not even 1929 anymore. US' share in world economy has been declining for quite a while. Even if US were to disappear in thin air tomorrow, the world would keep on chugging. And a civil war scenario implies that significant part of US economy would survive.

Countries would start going after each other.

If that was the case, WW2 would have started in 1929. It did not.

Nukes will fly because the US isn't there to stop them.

US has no power to stop nukes from flying even now, that's what MAD theory is all about. With a bunch of other nuclear states all over the place, there would be no more reason for any of them to launch their nukes than there is right now.

Other countries will get involved, if they aren't trying to save their own asses. Factories will be targeted. Production centers will dry up. ETC ETC.

What reason is there for Great Britain to get involved into US civil war? What purpose would Her Majesty's government pursue by targeting (former) US factories? What forces can London dispatch to US in case of civil war and how would those forces be supplied?

This wont be like the last civil war.

Well, yes, rising famine would cut any war in the US short, so no slogging matches for anyone.

 

[Zachowon]

"It would crash because it would crash" is an unbeatable logic, but it's not 1950 anymore. It's not even 1929 anymore. US' share in world economy has been declining for quite a while. Even if US were to disappear in thin air tomorrow, the world would keep on chugging. And a civil war scenario implies that significant part of US economy would survive.

If that was the case, WW2 would have started in 1929. It did not.

US has no power to stop nukes from flying even now, that's what MAD theory is all about. With a bunch of other nuclear states all over the place, there would be no more reason for any of them to launch their nukes than there is right now.

What reason is there for Great Britain to get involved into US civil war? What purpose would Her Majesty's government pursue by targeting (former) US factories? What forces can London dispatch to US in case of civil war and how would those forces be supplied?

Well, yes, rising famine would cut any war in the US short, so no slogging matches for anyone.

So...the largest economy and most powerful country having infighting so large places are getting blown up would change nothing in the world?
Yeah no, China alone would collapse because the US would no longer be holding them up. The country would be so much fighting and destruction it wouldn't matter if the economy was good after the initial start, it would get worse and worse.

WW2, countries didn't have nukes and the US was not the most powerful country. It was one of them but was still not the strongest and was not solely responsible for the world economy like it is now..

Because without the US, China would nuke Japan and take Taiwan.

You think our allies would join in the war? Russia and China would most likely send people. Isreal as well. British might but France would. The UN if it has not fallen apart, would potentially send UN peacekeepers to helpthe situation....

HHAHAHAHAH. A civil war in the US currently would not be short

 

[Firebat]

So...the largest economy and most powerful country having infighting so large places are getting blown up would change nothing in the world?

To repeat myself:
There would be a downturn until remaining pieces of US economy either flee or re-integrate into world economy as individual pieces

WW2, countries didn't have nukes and the US was not the most powerful country. It was one of them but was still not the strongest and was not solely responsible for the world economy like it is now..

It's actually the other way around. After Europe's demolition during WW2, US economy was basically half of the world economy. Today it's around 15%, give or take. A lot of US industrial output has been outsourced and it is much easier to pack up a head office with its management and patents and financial assets than to pack up an entire factory.

Yeah no, China alone would collapse because the US would no longer be holding them up.

Is it "China will collapse" or "China will become a military giant invading Taiwan and US"?
You can't have both.

You think our allies would join in the war? Russia and China would most likely send people. Isreal as well. British might but France would. The UN if it has not fallen apart, would potentially send UN peacekeepers to helpthe situation....

So... everyone will start nuking each other. And also everyone will send troops to US. And UN peacekeepers will be a thing as everyone starts, as you put it, "going at each other".

Realistically, UK and France would avoid the war like a plague. Intervention would invite opposing American faction to launch nukes at them. Not that UK and Frace have much troops or enough ships/planes to supply them in CONUS.
India and Pakistan are too far away.
Russian military is spread thin between Syria, Caucasus and Belarus/Ukraine. Even if there were troops to spare, Russian Navy/Air Force are shitting out their guts trying to supply Russian troops in Syria. Not that there would be a reason for Moscow to fight for anyone in a US civil war and risk a nuclear retaliation for it.
If China was to invade anything, it would be Taiwan. And PLAN can't perform multiple massive naval invasions, one of them across the Pacific. Ditto the nuke risk.
Israel - that's not even worth talking about.

Because without the US, China would nuke Japan and take Taiwan.

"Take Taiwan" - maybe.
"Nuke Japan" - no way. Japan is PRC's #2 trading partner, all the more relevant with US out of commission.

HHAHAHAHAH. A civil war in the US currently would not be short

Laugh or cry, the famine kills regardless. We live in the epoch of "just in time" deliveries, so any major disruption in distribution chains will murder people faster than guns. In a year either someone wins (fast) or half the population dies and survivors divide what remains.

 

[Harlock]

You are assuming this happens overnight, like at the stroke of midnight we go from the current set up to all out war. More likely it is a gradual process over the course of years with gathering tensions and violence. It is very unlikely you'd just have the country drive off a cliff, more a fast downhill slide that gets worse and worse but isn't particularly sudden.

That gives plenty of time for other countries to prepare, find alternate supply chains, create new alliances. You'll see capital flight if the US becomes unstable along with the best and brightest fleeing the country as usually happens before a government drops. That will probably make the situation worse and accelerate a war.

By the time it happens the US will have dropped behind China and the EU, other nations by necessity will have had to ally and integrate, the USD is unlikely to be the global reserve any more. Those things will probably make a US break more likely but will help insulate the rest of the globe.

It'll still be a major economic disaster and those countries that can't support themselves will have a bad time, but it won't be as bad as expected. In fact this is already happening, Trump showed the US cannot be considered the reliable partner people imagined it was and that partisanship in the US cares not for the global consequences of its actions.

 

[Zachowon]

You are assuming this happens overnight, like at the stroke of midnight we go from the current set up to all out war. More likely it is a gradual process over the course of years with gathering tensions and violence. It is very unlikely you'd just have the country drive off a cliff, more a fast downhill slide that gets worse and worse but isn't particularly sudden.

That gives plenty of time for other countries to prepare, find alternate supply chains, create new alliances. You'll see capital flight if the US becomes unstable along with the best and brightest fleeing the country as usually happens before a government drops. That will probably make the situation worse and accelerate a war.

By the time it happens the US will have dropped behind China and the EU, other nations by necessity will have had to ally and integrate, the USD is unlikely to be the global reserve any more. Those things will probably make a US break more likely but will help insulate the rest of the globe.

It'll still be a major economic disaster and those countries that can't support themselves will have a bad time, but it won't be as bad as expected. In fact this is already happening, Trump showed the US cannot be considered the reliable partner people imagined it was and that partisanship in the US cares not for the global consequences of its actions.

It wouldn't take as long as you seem to think it will.
It wontbe over night, but it also wont be years of decline before it happens. I mean, look now, it seems to be around the corner already

 

[Harlock]

It looks a long way off, you'd need widespread public support on both sides and that isn't happening any time soon. You'd also need the majority to back both sides and split rather than declare a pox on both left and right and follow their own path.

It is not impossible but would take time and an increasingly intolerable situation with no other way to resolve it. Shifting that mass of people I don't think is guaranteed or easy, violence among the far left and right sure, an insurgency maybe. But full scale war is going to need a lot more pushing to make people give up their comforts

 

[PsihoKekec]

I mean, look now, it seems to be around the corner already

I was listening to same story when during Obama years.

 

[Zachowon]

I was listening to same story when during Obama years.

I am the same guy saying ear woth China is around the corner as well

 

[JagerIV]

I mean, lets look at the last civil war: the time between Lincolns election and the battle of fort Sumpter was about 6 months. The first serious battle was July, 9 months later.

Like, from the point the Texas government votes to leave, how long will a military response take? If they aren't immediately arrested by Capital police, and generally survive the police response, and the guard mostly splits, how long will it take just to organize the military response? As I've pointed to our other military campaigns, Iraq prep is a multi month operation. If not more.

And don't forget police actions can take multiple months. The wako siege lasted about 2 months. Bundy was a month long thing. I could see some siege of an FBI office, or the FBI sieging the mayoral office of some break away town, over a couple of months. Most people will want to see if the police action can solve the issues before committing to force on force military actions. That's months.

And of course waffling. If Texas votes to leave, I could see the West Virginia government waffle immensly. Yes, they're very red, but also right next to DC and some big military bases in Virginia. I can them trying to be formally neutral until a clear winner happens. Or at least Texas lasts for 6 or so months and its clear this is not going to end in some negotiated settlement, or see that the Texas resistance doesn't immediately collapse once a single tank rolls through.

Which of course is another reason to waffle on military comittment: once you have a texas guard armor engage federal armor in pitched battle, that's going to signal to everyone that this is a real thing and people need to commit to a side. And if that tank battle doesn't resolve in a decisive Federal Victory, that pushes the 20-40% of the people who might be pro Texas but quiet or waffling to commit openly now that it seems victory is possible. And the Texans now that if they commit to the battle and lose, they're all going to jail. So neither side will be eager to commit to a big battle.

And, well, if that battle shows this is a war rather than a quick suppression, its going to be months to build up the armies to fight it. Texas by itself with fairly minimal mobilization (1%) can raise 200,000 troops. That's about 1/5th the size of the US army, true, but as We've seen in our recent combat, for a decisive campaign you really want 3-1 or 10-1 numerical superiority.

And well, the US Army is not going to be 1 million after Texas has withdrawn. Halfish would have deserted more or less by that point, and you then have, well, places like West Virginia. If Texas is breaking away West Virginia supporting them if left to their own devices, so they may be worth a premtive invasion. Occupation rules of thumb suggests that needs about 20,000 troops there. And West Virginia is going to be one of the smaller places securing the Blue position requires occupation. So, Available forces to invade Texas would probably be closer to 100,000, which means invading at a 2-1 disadvantage.

So, invasion requires a build up. Suggesting we may then have something like a 6-10 month phony war as both sides gear up, neither side feeling ready for major offenses. Which also means we'll have close to a year where, as much as possible, America is going to try and increase production and exports: Building up the Texas army from about 20,000 guardsmen + army turncoats to the 200k-1 million man army they're going to need requires hundreds of thousands more missiles, thousands of tanks, and just huge quantities of material.

Whatever can't be manufactured domestically has to be purchased. Thus, Texas will have every incentive to maximize its oil and food exports to buy weapondry from whoevers willing to sell them. I could see in this period exports and imports to china increasing. And of course everyone is going to be stockpiling for when things hit the fan at some inevitable point.

So, it perfectly possible that we don't really see any large scale campaigns and fighting until some 2 years after the first succession.

Everything takes time.

 

[Zachowon]

I mean, lets look at the last civil war: the time between Lincolns election and the battle of fort Sumpter was about 6 months. The first serious battle was July, 9 months later.

Like, from the point the Texas government votes to leave, how long will a military response take? If they aren't immediately arrested by Capital police, and generally survive the police response, and the guard mostly splits, how long will it take just to organize the military response? As I've pointed to our other military campaigns, Iraq prep is a multi month operation. If not more.

And don't forget police actions can take multiple months. The wako siege lasted about 2 months. Bundy was a month long thing. I could see some siege of an FBI office, or the FBI sieging the mayoral office of some break away town, over a couple of months. Most people will want to see if the police action can solve the issues before committing to force on force military actions. That's months.

And of course waffling. If Texas votes to leave, I could see the West Virginia government waffle immensly. Yes, they're very red, but also right next to DC and some big military bases in Virginia. I can them trying to be formally neutral until a clear winner happens. Or at least Texas lasts for 6 or so months and its clear this is not going to end in some negotiated settlement, or see that the Texas resistance doesn't immediately collapse once a single tank rolls through.

Which of course is another reason to waffle on military comittment: once you have a texas guard armor engage federal armor in pitched battle, that's going to signal to everyone that this is a real thing and people need to commit to a side. And if that tank battle doesn't resolve in a decisive Federal Victory, that pushes the 20-40% of the people who might be pro Texas but quiet or waffling to commit openly now that it seems victory is possible. And the Texans now that if they commit to the battle and lose, they're all going to jail. So neither side will be eager to commit to a big battle.

And, well, if that battle shows this is a war rather than a quick suppression, its going to be months to build up the armies to fight it. Texas by itself with fairly minimal mobilization (1%) can raise 200,000 troops. That's about 1/5th the size of the US army, true, but as We've seen in our recent combat, for a decisive campaign you really want 3-1 or 10-1 numerical superiority.

And well, the US Army is not going to be 1 million after Texas has withdrawn. Halfish would have deserted more or less by that point, and you then have, well, places like West Virginia. If Texas is breaking away West Virginia supporting them if left to their own devices, so they may be worth a premtive invasion. Occupation rules of thumb suggests that needs about 20,000 troops there. And West Virginia is going to be one of the smaller places securing the Blue position requires occupation. So, Available forces to invade Texas would probably be closer to 100,000, which means invading at a 2-1 disadvantage.

So, invasion requires a build up. Suggesting we may then have something like a 6-10 month phony war as both sides gear up, neither side feeling ready for major offenses. Which also means we'll have close to a year where, as much as possible, America is going to try and increase production and exports: Building up the Texas army from about 20,000 guardsmen + army turncoats to the 200k-1 million man army they're going to need requires hundreds of thousands more missiles, thousands of tanks, and just huge quantities of material.

Whatever can't be manufactured domestically has to be purchased. Thus, Texas will have every incentive to maximize its oil and food exports to buy weapondry from whoevers willing to sell them. I could see in this period exports and imports to china increasing. And of course everyone is going to be stockpiling for when things hit the fan at some inevitable point.

So, it perfectly possible that we don't really see any large scale campaigns and fighting until some 2 years after the first succession.

Everything takes time.

There are 3 major Army bases in TX. Ome within an hour of Austin.

 

[JagerIV]

There are 3 major Army bases in TX. Ome within an hour of Austin.

And?

 

[Zachowon]

And?

They both have the most armor out if any other base in the country besides MAYBE Benning.

Basically, the federal government would probably be given an ultimatum by TX. Leave everything and get out, or fight.
Of course with a split within the military itself, fighting would probably start near one of the bases themselvws

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

Would there also be a possibility of foreign volunteers fighting in this hypothetical Second American Civil War? Granted that there are foreign fighters in Syria and Ukraine, it wouldn't be farfetched to see that possibility happening. Especially if all they have to do is to cross several unguarded border crossings between Canada and the United States.

 

[JagerIV]

They both have the most armor out if any other base in the country besides MAYBE Benning.

Basically, the federal government would probably be given an ultimatum by TX. Leave everything and get out, or fight.
Of course with a split within the military itself, fighting would probably start near one of the bases themselvws

That falls under the "either it ends immediately, or doesn't" issue. If the base commander stays loyal and maintains his command, and then when the order comes down to seize Austin, and does, then things end quickly.

Or, this could be part of the waffling. Protestors "siege" the base, people desert, but no one overruns the base, or launches an attack. This is can be part of many months waffling. Like fort Sumpter, which happened 6 months after succession.

Either the tanks roll out and protestors fold immediately and refuse to fight, the tanks roll out but then refuse to open fire and civilians take the bases or surrender, in which case the local military disintegrates, or they roll out, are willing to fire, but the protestors don't back down immediately, then its a bloody affair of insurrection.

 

[Bassoe]

US' share in world economy has been declining for quite a while.

It isn't just the US's precipitation in the world economy, but all the World Policing no longer being done. How long do you think it'd take after the US collapsed for Russia to retake all their former Soviet Union territories, China to conquer Taiwan and change their modus operandi in Africa from economic neocolonalism with loans to the more conventional 'get off our land or we'll shoot you' variety, etc?

 

[JagerIV]

Would there also be a possibility of foreign volunteers fighting in this hypothetical Second American Civil War? Granted that there are foreign fighters in Syria and Ukraine, it wouldn't be farfetched to see that possibility happening. Especially if all they have to do is to cross several unguarded border crossings between Canada and the United States.

Of course they would. Both sides would advertise for them! Foreign volunteers/mercenaries are one of the things I think gives team blue an advantage. They're currently in a much better place to lean on foreign power sources than the Reds currently are. Even beyond direct volunteers, being in a better situation to contract out intelligence work to other allies to work on things, such as processing intercepted communications is a huge advantage. Or bringing in foreign skilled labor where needed. Or just having foreign safe areas to send troops to decompress.

 

[BlackDragon98]

Actually I do know how dictatorships work. In fact I would wager everyone here does.

So, I would like to know what your viewpoint is on how this current mess should be handled, in regards to the current mess with the Biden Admin, law enforcement and the increase in crime, etc. What would you do? I am asking for your honest viewpoints here.

The Biden Admin is an illegal government that has control of the intelligence apparatuses of the US, the media, and several (if not most or all) large corporations.

The only way out of this eventual 1984 level tyranny is straight up civil war. Otherwise you will be condemning your descendants to life in a Arizona desert gulag or a literal 1984 hellscape.

Political and legal actions are both useless due to their control of the courts, MSM, and political system (politicians) through corruption/bribery/etc.

Arizona, michigan and Georgia audits have proven that much.

Law enforcement will have to pick a side, just like the law enforcement in Burma. For the people or against the people.

Antifa and BLM do not pose a problem on the battlefield. The only reason they have been able to operate without repercussions is due to widespread Commicrat support for their actions and the deliberate inaction of RINOs.

I have the utmost confidence in the patriotism and warrior spirit of the true American people to overcome their domestic adversaries in a civil war.

-Black Dragon

 

[DarthOne]

@BlackDragon98 question is, what can we do against drone attacks, assuming (worse case scenario) that most of the military remains loyal to the ‘government’?