Debatable. And since when has that stopped them?
Blasterbot
Well-known member
living in rural bumble fuck MN I still see some crazy biden voters with masks on sanitizing everything before they touch it. fair few places haven't bothered removing the shit plastic to keep people from breathing on others. some places still have "socially distanced" areas too. If you get sick with something with symptoms similar to COVID? mandatory nasal tests and 3 days off to be sure. Boomers freak out that it can hit them harder than others. the younger generation got emotionally scarred by the reaction to it. in no way is that normal.
I have met plenty of Biden voters here in TX and not seen that
I still see people out in public, in open air, with masks on in Denver, both young and old.
The madness has lingered on in some areas, and I've even seen some news programs hyping up the 'latest variant' and 'need for new vax's for this variant'.
I actually think a repeat of the Wu Flu madness coming back full scale would likely break this nation down the lines a civil war may start on, and without clean 'breaks' at state borders even. That's why I keep worrying about Gates, Soros, and co working with the likes of Fauci and friends actually letting out another bug, possibly even one with actual legit high mortality in select populations, and getting their puppets like Biden and Trudeau to fully lockdown their nations to an almost NK level and effectively remove the US Costitution from power via 'indefinite medical veto'.
They already have that WHO 'treaty' to use to try to justify any such measures, and justify the actions to foreign powers too.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
I'm not worried about that specific fear. Treaties don't supercede the constitution, and people aren't on board for another mismanaged pandemic. They might get the vax but it's just another flu shot to them at this point, even to most people advocating the vax. With only a tiny fraction of people who would tolerate (let alone support) draconian moves, they won't move. Even assuming the media play along completely (which I doubt) that still wouldn't be enough, at least for the near future.
I guess I should ask, actually. Is this a near-future fear of yours, or are you thinking more like "this might be how it happens in a couple/few decades"?
It's a fear that will probably be continuous so long as US politics follows it's current trajectory.
Unless we get something like Nuremburg 2.0 for Fauci and co for what they did, someone will try that shit again when they get an authoritarian impulse.
The only way I could see a country, even one in civil war utilizing nukes against its own soil would be if either some foreign doomsday cult captured a silo (ala when Al Queda made a play at a Pakistani nuclear facility ) and launched the nuke themselves or it's an Ebola-Zaire type situation, where Mobutu said "this is too risky" and ordered napalm strikes against villages to contain the outbreak.
The odds of either happening on US soil are astronomically low.
Simonbob
Well-known member
I can see something else.
Nukes can be seen, from a certain point of view, the ultimate sign of the monopoly of force. "We, the legitimate govenment, are the ones trusted to hold the nukes!"
I can't see much chance of them being used, but that's not the major issue. Keeping external groups from being too obvious in interfering, yes. Using them as both threat and symbol? Yes.
Using them domestically? Only if a true loonie gets power. So, not impossible, but not too likely.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
The political situation would have to change dramatically in ways I cannot anticipate for domestic wartime first use of nukes to be put on the table even in the most drastic of military situations. Then again, it's possible for that to happen in civil war.
Sure, but the threat of their utilization also delegitimizes your regime, and you run the risk of your populace deciding, "Well shit, if they're that crazy, then what do we have to lose?" it's why you didn't see Central African dictators resorting to napalming their enemies even in genocides with the one excepted I posted above.
Brazil has shelled its own ghettos, but South America is a schizopilled continent, so.
Simonbob
Well-known member
I wasn't thinking a direct threat, so much as a "We are the only ones who could be trusted with them, so asking us to hand them over is terrorists asking for them." as much as anything else. And, even if you stress you'll never use them on such illegimate targets, the mere fact you're bringing them up is a threat of sorts.
Sure, there's problems with that, but desperate monsters don't have a lot of limits.
Wargamer08
Well-known member
Any civil war bad enough that one side considers nuking the other is bad enough that both sides are going to have nukes. It's why I roll my eyes out of my skull anytime someone brings up nukes in a US civil war. There are too many nuke subs, too many ICBM silos and too many USMC guarded nuclear lockers to assume one side has a monopoly on nukes. Honestly the only thing nukes would be useful for in a civil war is literally falseflagging your opponent using them.
FDA: Ivermectin Still Not Approved for COVID
The fact that this was brought up again as news about another Covid strain have started making the rounds reinforces my suspicions that they're preparing for COVID Panic 2.0.
The fact that this was brought up again as news about another Covid strain have started making the rounds reinforces my suspicions that they're preparing for COVID Panic 2.0.
Sequels never work out as well for a company as the original does.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Can you honestly tell me that I don't have a point?
Not really; I brought up in a previous page that we're likely going to see another COVID panic and lockdowns as a way of 'fortifying the election'.
Either the lockdowns or the election 'fortification' could be the spark that lights this powerkeg.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
I suppose not, though I think you know what I was getting at.
But yeah; as others have explained, ACW II will be nowhere near as clean or clear-cut as the first. Really, I'd draw more comparisons to not just Syria or the Spanish Civil War (which have already been mentioned), but also the Russian Civil War (in terms of just how much more fractious and brutal it'd be).
Even then, that last one ended after only four years, whereas I doubt ACW II would be decided nearly as fast and might descend into decades-long warlordism akin to the Chinese Civil War instead. Maybe that's the better analogy, even though the real thing will take on a life of its own and come to defy all previous comparisons the same World War II did for the Napoleonic Wars far earlier.
'The next 14 days.' Sound familiar? it should this is how that nonsense started last time.
Do not comply.
They will keep setting fires until you submit to their climate change agenda.
They will keep allowing looting of shops until you submit to electronic IDs and facial surveillance.
They will keep creating pandemics until you submit to medical slavery.
Do not comply.
Last edited: