2nd Civil War Theorycrafting Thread, Peaches Free

[The Whispering Monk]

DIY drones don't tend to have the same abilities/performance of things like Reapers or Global Hawks,

They have to land and become vulnerable. Not to mention their operators.

And that's before we get into the more...unconventional/impolite types of tracking done against the general public on a daily basis, which will be used to track and deal with rebels.

These are actually pretty vulnerable to screwing with.

 

[LordsFire]

Uh, what about the cameras that are everywhere? Even when "World's Dumbest" came out years ago they were everywhere.

You are right about the incomepetent part, but there is a flaw: they only have to be LESS incompetent than the people they are after, and the elitists behind all of this must be competent to have gotten this far.

Cameras are a lot of places, but they aren't everywhere, and they're also pretty easy to disable if you find yourself wanting to.

The Democrat party of the 90's might have been that competent. The Democrat Party when Obama was elected might even have been.

But they're facing the inevitable problem every cult of lies does; they've raised up a younger generation that believes the lies, that doesn't understand it's all just a fiction to feed the plebs so that they'll support you.

This has given them easy and ready access to violent mobs, but violent mobs don't win wars, largely because they're terrible at structured planning, and can turn on you fairly quickly.

 

[Zachowon]

Have you ever held a rifle?

Fired a rifle?

Fired it at long range?

Do you think that being an MP somehow makes a person magically immune to bullets?

What do you think happens to a military base when it gets cut off from power, water, and sewage, and demands are issued that the people involved in atrocities be turned over?

What do you think happens when expeditionary forces sent out to forcibly reconnect the utilities get ambushed, firebombed, etc, etc?


Almost the entirety of your position is based on 'What one side does will be effective, what the other side does will not be.' That's not how war works. That's especially not how civil wars work.

'I have orders to defend this base' is a lot less of a motivation than 'my family was killed by a psychotic mass-murderer, I want revenge, and I have nothing left to lose.'

The armed forces in the USA have 1,328,000 people in uniform. The reserves contain about another 800,000. That's about 2.1 million people in total. Of those, only a fraction are 'combat arms,' and the rest are involved in a whole host of support roles. The military as a whole is outnumbered about 150:1 by the civilian populace, and when you shave away the parts that would either not side with leftist federalists in the first place, or would immediately refuse to obey any further after a nuke is dropped, those odds scale much, much higher.

If we take unrealistically pessimistic assumptions, assume the whole military *does* remain with the federalists, and divide the populace into 20% left, 20% right, 60% undecided, we're left with 30:1 numerical advantages to the civilians, or 63 million vs 2.1 million. Now let's assume that only one in a hundred of those 63 million are actually willing to go do something stupidly dangerous to punish those responsible for nuking.

That gets you 630,000 people willing to die to get some revenge. If only one hundredth of those are close enough to meaningfully act against whatever Dems are in DC at the time, that's still 6300 partisans making everyday life hell, and being out in the open a lethal liability for them.

This isn't a 'regular' threat out in the open that you can easily see and engage. This is someone parking their car ten blocks down the street, using it to create a blind, and then waiting with a rifle for a shot. It's someone loading a car with explosives, and driving it into the gate of your military base or government structure. It's poisoning the water supply, demolishing power substations and lines, it's a million things that are hard to stop, and even harder to know are coming until after they happen.

Yeah, a lot of these insurgents/partisans would die, but a lot of the people they're attacking are going to die too. And the soldiers, the police, and everyone else who is getting killed protecting the people who pushed the button?

They have 'following orders' for a motivation. Very, very few people are actually fully onboard with the leftist ideology, and most of them are only on board with it for as long as it doesn't cost them personally. Once the bodies start falling, they're going to be asking themselves 'Am I really willing to die for this?'

And on the other side, you have people who know that it is literally do or die. Surrender is not an option, because if the enemy gets their hands on you, you'll be lucky if they just kill you, more likely they'll rape you first, and tell you about how righteous they are for doing so.

Two things matter in war, the capacity to fight, and the will to fight. There are about 300 million too many guns in the US for the capacity to be able to be destroyed, especially as home manufacture of new guns and ammunition is very much a thing.

Once a nuke is dropped, the will to fight becomes functionally infinite, for the same reason that the Ukrainians are fighting like hell against the Russians right now.

The USA couldn't stop the Taliban from being able to harass its bases and patrols in Afghanistan, which is literally on the far side of the planet from its economic and industrial place, as well as the politicians and military brass making the decisions.

The FBI, NSA, etc, have failed to stop how many school shooters and similar over the last twenty years, even when some of the individuals were specifically and repeatedly brought to their attention?

Your entire position is based on assuming high levels of competence on the part of a political movement that specifically eschews competence in favor of political orthodoxy.

Do you know how hard it is to defeat a surveillance satellite or drone trying to identify people?

It takes a hat.

A glorified hat.

You can also do it with a mask, or a bloody cloud.


Your entire argument position is one long chain of thinking that people who are demonstrably incompetent, will be very competent, and that the people opposing them will be incompetent cowards.

You are willfully blind.

Military bases are self sufficient especially bigger ones.

And the NSA is for foreign not domestic things.
So that is why they can't.


Also, it is important to realize that soldiers families don't often live on post, and do stuff off post.
Add in the fact most won't really follow the government and will instead get out because what is the government gonna do in a civil war? Give then breaks?

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Military bases are self sufficient especially bigger ones.

Sorta...they lack the ability to manufacture their own fuel or food. Yes, they can have a decent stockpile...maybe.

 

[Cherico]

Military bases are self sufficient especially bigger ones.

And the NSA is for foreign not domestic things.
So that is why they can't.


Also, it is important to realize that soldiers families don't often live on post, and do stuff off post.
Add in the fact most won't really follow the government and will instead get out because what is the government gonna do in a civil war? Give then breaks?

Entire nations are not self sufficient either we are using very different meanings of the word or you are incorrect.

 

[Zachowon]

Sorta...they lack the ability to manufacture their own fuel or food. Yes, they can have a decent stockpile...maybe.

Entire nations are not self sufficient either we are using very different meanings of the word or you are incorrect.

I mean in the power amd water aspect

 

[DarthOne]

Uh, what about the cameras that are everywhere? Even when "World's Dumbest" came out years ago they were everywhere.

You are right about the incomepetent part, but there is a flaw: they only have to be LESS incompetent than the people they are after, and the elitists behind all of this must be competent to have gotten this far.

You also forget it would only take making examples of a small number of people to terrorize the rest into compliance. To someone my age this country is now literally a police state. Now. And one reason for some of my peculiar statements about being banned was because an INFORMANT from one site got me banned from another. So you see, you overlook the problem of informants, and especially since September 11th 2001 we've been encouraged to become informants- too many people are willing to go along with it.

Plus there’s the ‘buy a hard hat, a yellow traffic vest and pretend to be a maintenance worker while you mess with the camera at 5 in the morning’ method.

 

[CurtisLemay]

Once a nuke is dropped, the will to fight becomes functionally infinite, for the same reason that the Ukrainians are fighting like hell against the Russians right now.

There's also a much simpler reason you don't use nukes in a civil war. Well three reasons...

1. Nukes are great at ruining infastructure. Assuming you are fighting to win, you really want to get the infastructure intact to help rebuild from the war. Not to mention, rads and fallout doesn't salute.

2. If you use nuclear weapons, it's an admission you've lost. This is going to cause massive defections because the side that uses first will be seen as a bunch of murderers. Reprisals will follow, and may not be carried out in kind per se. In other words, if you're on the side that used the nukes? You might not be allowed to surrender, because the other side may just shoot you out of hand.

3. What the hell is the rest of the world going to think? Yeah, you know, all the other nuclear powers who just saw you *nuke* your own people. You're just a bunch of foreigners, and now the nuclear threshold of one of the two major nuclear powers on the planet just got lowered. Not to mention there would be serious doubts of the NCA's sanity. Oh, and our system of alliances would be DOA. NATO, G-7, UN, all gone. We would be like North Korea. Someone might even panic and nuke us.

So no, it would be the worst decision ever made by a President of the United States to use nuclear weapons on his own people. It's not a non-zero chance if there is a civil war. But, it's not likely.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

The use of nuclear weapons on homeland soil is not technically impossible, but it is sodding improbable. Anyone daft enough to try and push the big red button would probably be stopped by their own generals!

 

[Free-Stater 101]

3. What the hell is the rest of the world going to think? Yeah, you know, all the other nuclear powers who just saw you *nuke* your own people. You're just a bunch of foreigners, and now the nuclear threshold of one of the two major nuclear powers on the planet just got lowered. Not to mention there would be serious doubts of the NCA's sanity. Oh, and our system of alliances would be DOA. NATO, G-7, UN, all gone. We would be like North Korea. Someone might even panic and nuke us.

So no, it would be the worst decision ever made by a President of the United States to use nuclear weapons on his own people. It's not a non-zero chance if there is a civil war. But, it's not likely.

There is also the point that other nuclear armed states will not consider you trustworthy on any scale after the fact.

MAD only works if you actually fear your country collapsing, a countries leadership showing complete willingness to nuke their own people provided they are safe in a few small bunkers shows that, that leadership is just as likely to turn their bombs on other powers for more or less the same reasons provided the leadership remains safe.

 

[Captain X]

TL;DW - Rosanne predicts that there will be no election in 2024.

 

[DarthOne]

TL;DW - Rosanne predicts that there will be no election in 2024.

That sounds depressingly probable. Or that they’ll do another ‘emergency’ to force mass mail in voting again.

 

[Doomsought]

2. If you use nuclear weapons, it's an admission you've lost. This is going to cause massive defections because the side that uses first will be seen as a bunch of murderers. Reprisals will follow, and may not be carried out in kind per se. In other words, if you're on the side that used the nukes? You might not be allowed to surrender, because the other side may just shoot you out of hand.

Think for a minute about the guys who actually pull the trigger on nuclear weapons. The kind of person who has worked their way up the ranks until they could be assigned to a weapon they know will never be used. Now ask yourself, if you ruin their nap time with orders to nuke somebody that does not need to be nuked, how likely it is that they will instead meander over into the silo and find a few "Maintence problems" that will prevent the weapon from firing?

 

[DarthOne]

There is a counter to that though. The counter is not having military formations out in the field where they can be bombed with impunity. Again the rebels have an advantage that could irreparably damage the U.S. that the Taliban and the Viet Kong never had. They have the ability to attack government forces when they are in their home relaxing with their families. If a popular rebel movement was attacking government forces not in street to street battle when the troops are armed and ready but instead hunting them on leave or their families then there is only one way for the government to defend against that strategy that would be to put all security forces and loyal government forces and their families in their own separate areas from the rest of the population of the nation.

However if they do this then they have weakened their nation to a great degree sure they might still retain control just like apartheid Africa, or Assad, or the Kims maintain control. But now they have to rely on a new "noble" class to keep order over the majority. Because the common people are not trusted and much sabatoge would be done so now factories will build MUCH less than before and technology will advance much less. This means that with the government so much weaker it's rivals are now able to equal it and Russia and China could pounce and gobble up it's sphere of influence in East Europe and the South China sea. It would be the end of Western American led dominance. You just have to be willing to not care about Iran, China, North Korea, and Russia doing it's own thing that are against the American government's interest. Because if you do care then you'd make peace and sacrifice for the government to stop the other nations from winning. But if you care about the "American Empire" then yes the government will win.


Then can you please write a scenario in which nukes are used by the government against rebels?

The problem is that any rebellion will have to eventually have some sort of standing force to take and hold territory against incursions and to cement their legitimacy. There's a reason why the Continental Army existed back during the American Revolution. Same goes for the Vietnamese.

Viet Cong - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Viet Cong[nb 1] was an armed communist organization and movement in South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Also called the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam,[nb 2] it fought under the direction of North Vietnam against the South Vietnamese and United States governments during the Vietnam War. The organization had both guerrilla and regular army units, as well as a network of cadres who organized and mobilized peasants in the territory the Viet Cong controlled.

(Emphasis and italics mine)

 

[LordsFire]

The problem is that any rebellion will have to eventually have some sort of standing force to take and hold territory against incursions and to cement their legitimacy. There's a reason why the Continental Army existed back during the American Revolution. Same goes for the Vietnamese.

If a long-term civil war does develop, yes, at least semi-conventional field units will be used by both sides. The National Guard is likely where the nucleus of such units will come from.

Irregular partisans will be a continual factor as well though.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

If a long-term civil war does develop, yes, at least semi-conventional field units will be used by both sides. The National Guard is likely where the nucleus of such units will come from.

Irregular partisans will be a continual factor as well though.

In a long term civil war I do think it would develop into a conventional war. Rebels only engage in partisan and irregular activities until they are strong enough to meet their foes in battle, and when that happens? By this point rebel groups are ludicrously battle hardened, motivated, and well lead. A Hell of a force to deal with by that point.

But, a big problem for a potential rebel movement is their lack of sea power. The coastal cities would have a lot of financial clout and the US Navy to keep the sea lanes open. If they can import enough food to prevent starvation, they can then start torching agricultural areas to starve out the rebels.

 

[LordsFire]

In a long term civil war I do think it would develop into a conventional war. Rebels only engage in partisan and irregular activities until they are strong enough to meet their foes in battle, and when that happens? By this point rebel groups are ludicrously battle hardened, motivated, and well lead. A Hell of a force to deal with by that point.

But, a big problem for a potential rebel movement is their lack of sea power. The coastal cities would have a lot of financial clout and the US Navy to keep the sea lanes open. If they can import enough food to prevent starvation, they can then start torching agricultural areas to starve out the rebels.

The thing is, modern power and water infrastructure is generally ludicrously vulnerable.

You might only have 'control' of red states, but a few dozen constitutionalists in blue territory would be able to cripple entire cities through sabotage. That's going to make a lot more difference than thousands of men and hundreds of armored vehicles in the field.

 

[Cherico]

In a long term civil war I do think it would develop into a conventional war. Rebels only engage in partisan and irregular activities until they are strong enough to meet their foes in battle, and when that happens? By this point rebel groups are ludicrously battle hardened, motivated, and well lead. A Hell of a force to deal with by that point.

But, a big problem for a potential rebel movement is their lack of sea power. The coastal cities would have a lot of financial clout and the US Navy to keep the sea lanes open. If they can import enough food to prevent starvation, they can then start torching agricultural areas to starve out the rebels.

The problem with that is that America is quite possibly the biggest agricultural exporter in the world.

Take that food off the international market and then try to import food? Your going to be competing with a lot of hungry mouths and thinking that this wont put a lot of countries over the brink into their own civil wars is maddness. I think quite honestly that when the US goes to civil war it will be a civilizational civil war.

It wont just be us, it will be a good chunk of europe, a good chunk of the middle east, africa, australia, and most definatly the UK. So getting that food its going to be expensive as hell and the insurance rates of getting stuff shipped into a warzone will drive up costs even more.

 

[DarthOne]

In before more mail in only voting, lockdowns and who knows what else as the Deep State prepares to cheat again.

 

[Zachowon]

Idl, the country has returned to normal to a degree