2nd Civil War Theorycrafting Thread, Peaches Free

[TriforcedLink]

The way I see it, the feds constantly slobbering over taking guns and gun rights away from us is admission enough that even with all the high tech big boy gear, they still can't see a scenario where they can win with them. If they were so invincible with modern war machines why the fuck bother to even worry about Billy bob owning a shitty shotgun? He's a stupid hick prick who will soon know his place at his betters feet... It's an admission of weakness to me because the feds wouldn't care about gun grabbing if they didn't need to disarm us to rule us.

Nuking America at best it would be a pyrrhic victory where the unelected bureaucrats rule over the ashes.

It's very hard to take you seriously when you are being such a whiny doomer about it.

 

[King Arts]

Tell that to the many, many Leftists who openly talk about nukes as counters to rebellions (Swalwell) or say unless you have F-15s, you cannot challenge the Fed gov meaningfully (Biden), and their base which mostly feels the same.

And also remember, doesn't take that many politically reliable officers to get a domestic strike going during a rebellion; just enough folks to prep, arm and deliver a B-61 grav bomb.

The days a ACW 2.0 could look like the first, and be fought effectively by rebels in any real manner at all, ended when the Trinity Site test was successful.

You fantastically dumb motherfucker

Nukes are absolutely useless in a civil war. First off there would be very few "front lines" what territory do they nuke? Also if they do decide to nuke what stops everyone from torturing and killing and raping the people who followed that order and their families? Yes you can get some people crazy enough to operate it and launch. What happens after do you think everyone is just cowed? What stops reprisals? After this is done and the family members of those who did it are raped, tortured, mutilated, killed, etc. What next? Here is the thing for regular warfare against insurgents the occupying army DOES NOT LIVE NEXT TO THE INSURGENTS! Yes the leaders have protection and guards. But tell me who protects the guards Bacle do they also live in those fortresses with their families? If they don't that is a pretty big liability.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

The way I see it, the feds constantly slobbering over taking guns and gun rights away from us is admission enough that even with all the high tech big boy gear, they still can't see a scenario where they can win with them. If they were so invincible with modern war machines why the fuck bother to even worry about Billy bob owning a shitty shotgun? He's a stupid hick prick who will soon know his place at his betters feet... It's an admission of weakness to me because the feds wouldn't care about gun grabbing if they didn't need to disarm us to rule us.

Or worse, they’ve a genuinely held conviction that society would be safer if they took the guns away.

Given how in Britain we traded our weapons for a safer society, and now have knife crime going through the roof, I’m not so sure about that conviction.

 

[King Arts]

One thing people keep misunderstanding is that a civil war won’t be like in 1865. No a rehash is not going to happen. A civil war would be more like Africa. If the government used nukes then imagine the Rwandan genocide except the Hutu win. The Hutu are those who are against using nukes.
If you want a historical example from the 1800s maybe the Haiti revolution.

 

[Doomsought]

One thing people keep misunderstanding is that a civil war won’t be like in 1865. No a rehash is not going to happen. A civil war would be more like Africa. If the government used nukes then imagine the Rwandan genocide except the Hutu win. The Hutu are those who are against using nukes.
If you want a historical example from the 1800s maybe the Haiti revolution.

I have to disagree. We already have states declaring their allegiance.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

I have to disagree. We already have states declaring their allegiance.

I think if the powder keg went off (God willing it never will), a lot of the “Purple” states may dissolve into something truly hideous.

 

[stephen the barbarian]

so, what happens if there's a left wing insurrection? well, more than what's already going on at least.

 

[Bacle]

Satellites can't see through forest canopies.

And you reveal you don't know what LIDAR is or what is is capable of doing.

You know how they've found on those weird temple covered in jungle in C. America and SE Asia from overflights; guess what they used to do that sort of work.

Tree canopies aren't cover against shit anymore, and they can do LIDAR from sats.

They can't see inside of cars.

They can't see inside the covered bed of a pickup truck.

No, sats cannot directly, but they do have devices to scan things on the ground in other ways, like the equipment the gov uses to inspect cargo containers at ports and check vehicles at border crossings.

So the tech exists to do what they want, and frankly it's just a matter of implementation.

Even when they can see a dude doing something, they can't make out enough detail to see his face, to see useful details about just how tall and broad he is or isn't.

Modern recon sats can make out something the size of individual sneaker, so not a lot going to hide from them if it's above ground.

Also, satellites don't track every single human being under their camera range. They can't. There are hundreds of miles of power lines, of water pipes, of roads, and you cannot watch it all, or even come close to watching it all, with satellites.

The US Air Force is aiming to have 24/7 watch on every itch of the planet via a constellation of recon sats which are as numerous as the Starlink types, with at least one camera on any point of the earth round the clock.

So, once again, you are working from old data and old tech paradigms.

You repeat this like a bloody religious mantra, you repeat it like saying it again over and over will make it true.

It doesn't.

You are literally at the stage of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying 'naaa naaa naa, if I can't hear you, then what you're saying isn't true!'

It has been explained to you, repeatedly, in detail, at multiple different levels, why nukes are not 'I win' buttons, and war over the ninety years since nukes became a thing bear this out, especially recently in Afghanistan and Ukraine, but for whatever reason you refuse to pay attention to reality.

Why are you so bloody insistent on being willfully ignorant?

No, I just pay attention to what Leftist actually say, and I know that as much as people here want to feel Swalwell's threats were a joke not to be taken seriously, I know it wasn't a joke, it was the honest view of many on the Left.

I also know the whole way the Right fetishizes over how to pull off a 'successful' rebellion usually has the big caveat of 'no nukes' tossed on it in Vs Debates, because admitting the power of nukes in domestic strife would undercut 90% of the fantasies of people who think there is any way DC is beat by rebels.

Nukes don't help against a local insurgency.

The scenarios I am speaking about are the stages where it is not an insurgency, but an open, armed rebellion against DC with formations of troops and units deserting to join them.

A local insurgency is not capable of presenting a threat to DC that actually is meaningful, so hard to call that a civil war or consider it something that would actually get more than maybe some Nat Guard units tasked to it.

This isn't going to be a COIN conflict, not if it actually is supposed to create an actual threat to DC.

 

[King Arts]

I have to disagree. We already have states declaring their allegiance.

Not really since factions don’t exist yet since it hasn’t started. Also two other problems the US is more homogeneous now there are leftests and the right everywhere people move more freely now. Second the military is more centralized even the national guard which is nominally under control of the state governors can be taken by the president and they will obey. They see themselves as U.S. soldiers not soldiers of the states. Any civil war will be fought for the whole country not a part going independent.

 

[Aldarion]

As far as the usage of nukes, drones, etc. go I'll first let this master strategist from 4chan outline my thoughts in a more eloquent manner.

Tl;dr going nuclear is a tacit admission of defeat - saying out loud that you really have no hope whatsoever of uniting & leading the country, or even profiting from the ruins, and would sooner burn it down out of spite. It and the other big fancy engines of death in the US military's arsenal can't actually be used for policing duties on their lonesome, duties which are obviously fundamental to counter-insurgency, and you need people - who have their own thoughts, their own fears and hopes for the country, their own families & friends to think about (who certainly aren't immune to the leadership going full retard with nukes), etc. - to do that.

Besides, nukes are primarily useful against concentrated population centers, and who lives in those mostly? Leftists! I'd expect right-wing rebels in an American context to be primarily operating out in the countryside (too dispersed for nukes to be useful, you might be able to vaporize the leaders of one insurgent outfit or another if you can identify which mountain they're hiding under but leaders can be replaced - AQ is still around long after Bin Laden was killed and Muhammad Omar dying didn't spell the end for the Taliban) or from the suburbs (can't nuke that either without also vaporizing the 'urb' where all your supporters live, nukes aren't exactly a precision weapon).

Also you'd think 20+ years in the sandpits of Iraq and Afghanistan would have taught the brass that doing shit like drone striking weddings, flattening neighborhoods or even paying Antifa (or the John Brown Gun Club, or whatever other psychotic far-left paramilitary outfit you can think of that really wouldn't have a problem with raping and murdering any civilian to the right of Mao) to do their dirty work for them will inevitably backfire and gin up even more resistance, much less even worse terror tactics like nuking entire cities to kill some rebel cells.

While everything written in there is correct, I think you are making a fundamental mistake: assuming that the people ruling the West care about people's survival. They don't give a shit. They want to rule, they want their slaves, and it is entirely possible - though not necessarily certain - that if they are denied it, they will go "if I cannot have this, nobody can". And there goes the nuclear fireworks display.

The only part that might stop them is the fact that, yes, leftists are concentrated in the cities.

 

[Ixian]

And you reveal you don't know what LIDAR is or what is is capable of doing.

You know how they've found on those weird temple covered in jungle in C. America and SE Asia from overflights; guess what they used to do that sort of work.

Tree canopies aren't cover against shit anymore, and they can do LIDAR from sats.

No, sats cannot directly, but they do have devices to scan things on the ground in other ways, like the equipment the gov uses to inspect cargo containers at ports and check vehicles at border crossings.

So the tech exists to do what they want, and frankly it's just a matter of implementation.

Modern recon sats can make out something the size of individual sneaker, so not a lot going to hide from them if it's above ground.

The US Air Force is aiming to have 24/7 watch on every itch of the planet via a constellation of recon sats which are as numerous as the Starlink types, with at least one camera on any point of the earth round the clock.

So, once again, you are working from old data and old tech paradigms.

No, I just pay attention to what Leftist actually say, and I know that as much as people here want to feel Swalwell's threats were a joke not to be taken seriously, I know it wasn't a joke, it was the honest view of many on the Left.

I also know the whole way the Right fetishizes over how to pull off a 'successful' rebellion usually has the big caveat of 'no nukes' tossed on it in Vs Debates, because admitting the power of nukes in domestic strife would undercut 90% of the fantasies of people who think there is any way DC is beat by rebels.

The scenarios I am speaking about are the stages where it is not an insurgency, but an open, armed rebellion against DC with formations of troops and units deserting to join them.

A local insurgency is not capable of presenting a threat to DC that actually is meaningful, so hard to call that a civil war or consider it something that would actually get more than maybe some Nat Guard units tasked to it.

This isn't going to be a COIN conflict, not if it actually is supposed to create an actual threat to DC.

I'm thinking it'll be both.

Yeah we will see a split in the military, and state national guard forces fighting as professional soldiers.

But we are also going to see a lot of militia and insurgency groups.

 

[Bacle]

I'm thinking it'll be both.

Yeah we will see a split in the military, and state national guard forces fighting as professional soldiers.

But we are also going to see a lot of militia and insurgency groups.

See, I don't think a civil war of that scale is actually possible in the modern US, partly because I acknowledge nukes are very much on the table.

Only way I see a ACW 2.0 breaking out is if it's among the survivors/remnants of US forces and gov after an all out, or nearly all out, nuclear exchange with one or more near peer nations.

Short of that, the power of glowies and internet data scrapping tools can stop anything that could meaningfully threaten DC long before the point we reached scenario's nuke were deployed.

 

[Circle of Willis]

While everything written in there is correct, I think you are making a fundamental mistake: assuming that the people ruling the West care about people's survival. They don't give a shit. They want to rule, they want their slaves, and it is entirely possible - though not necessarily certain - that if they are denied it, they will go "if I cannot have this, nobody can". And there goes the nuclear fireworks display.

The only part that might stop them is the fact that, yes, leftists are concentrated in the cities.

Maybe, but y'know what, two can play at the nuclear game. If we're at the point where the government is actually in peril of being overthrown (implying mass mutinies/defections among the US military to generate a sufficiently conventionally threatening force and not merely a Years of Lead-style campaign of terrorism & insurgent activity) then you bet the rebels are going to be locking down bases with nukes of their own, quite a few of which are located in red states (or at least, red portions of purple states).

Between Georgia, North Dakota, Missouri & Montana Team America already has more than enough nukes to drag Team Globalist to a fiery radioactive hell with them, or indeed the rest of the planet if they so wish. That's like ~3000 missiles, I'm sure someone will remember to lob a few dozen at NZ or wherever else the ruling elite thinks of retreating and hiding until they can re-emerge to rule the ashes.

 

[LordsFire]

And you reveal you don't know what LIDAR is or what is is capable of doing.

No, I just pay attention to what Leftist actually say, and I know that as much as people here want to feel Swalwell's threats were a joke not to be taken seriously, I know it wasn't a joke, it was the honest view of many on the Left.

I also know the whole way the Right fetishizes over how to pull off a 'successful' rebellion usually has the big caveat of 'no nukes' tossed on it in Vs Debates, because admitting the power of nukes in domestic strife would undercut 90% of the fantasies of people who think there is any way DC is beat by rebels.

1. LIDAR or ground-penetrating radar mounted on low-flying aircraft and the like is a world of difference from it being at the low end over 100km up, at the high end, tens of thousands of kilometers up.

2. The leftists like Swalwell are just as bloody ignorant as you are.

3. Multiple of us in this thread have directly addressed that if the Federal government actually chooses, and even succeeds in ordering nuclear strikes on US soil, this would not make them win, it would in fact make them lose.


At this point it's clear that you are simply actively resisting understanding the truth, and I'm starting to suspect it's because you want a pre-justification for your own cowardice and refusal to fight if open civil war actually breaks out.

Just another reason to hope it never actually happens, I suppose.

 

[Bacle]

Maybe, but y'know what, two can play at the nuclear game. If we're at the point where the government is actually in peril of being overthrown (implying mass mutinies/defections among the US military to generate a sufficiently conventionally threatening force and not merely a Years of Lead-style campaign of terrorism & insurgent activity) then you bet the rebels are going to be locking down bases with nukes of their own, quite a few of which are located in red states (or at least, red portions of purple states).

Between Georgia, North Dakota, Missouri & Montana Team America already has more than enough nukes to drag Team Globalist to a fiery radioactive hell with them, or indeed the rest of the planet if they so wish. That's like ~3000 missiles, I'm sure someone will remember to lob a few dozen at NZ or wherever else the ruling elite thinks of retreating and hiding until they can re-emerge to rule the ashes.

See, that would require the rebels to have ways around the permissive action links, which is not really possible to do.

At most the rebels would have makings of some dirty bombs, and rebels using dirty bombs would lose them most internal and international support.

Also, remember, NORAD and the Air Force Academy is in Colorado, along with a large amount of silos, and most of the Navy's nukes are on/near the Lefty coasts, or at sea.

Unless the rebels have massive local AA/airspace superiority, DC and just use whatever air assets it has on hand in loyal areas to grind down the rebels while pinning them in place with cordons and 24/7 drone/sat watch.

1. LIDAR or ground-penetrating radar mounted on low-flying aircraft and the like is a world of difference from it being at the low end over 100km up, at the high end, tens of thousands of kilometers up.

2. The leftists like Swalwell are just as bloody ignorant as you are.

3. Multiple of us in this thread have directly addressed that if the Federal government actually chooses, and even succeeds in ordering nuclear strikes on US soil, this would not make them win, it would in fact make them lose.


At this point it's clear that you are simply actively resisting understanding the truth, and I'm starting to suspect it's because you want a pre-justification for your own cowardice and refusal to fight if open civil war actually breaks out.

Just another reason to hope it never actually happens, I suppose.

No, I just do not buy the fundamental assumptions your argument rests on, and of course you decide to make it a personal attack because I don't go along with the "nuke's won't be use/nuke's mean DC loses" assumption/mantra of parts of the Right.

See, this is why I know the Right is going to lose any domestic conflict that happens in the US, because they think trying to reenact 1776 is actually possible, despite that canned sunshine is in play. They don't take their enemies seriously in what they say they are willing to do if needed, and go all 'Shocked Pikachu Face' when shit like the Mar-a-Lago Raid happens and still think the people who control their country aren't willing to use nukes on rebels that can actually threaten DC's hold on power.

And they completely discount the media that DC controls and how it would be used to craft justifications and narratives to justify said strikes, but this time with likely war-time, near marshal law level shit coming down in areas with open rebel activity.

With the first civil war, there was no way for the rebels to win without outside help, and even then said rebels were too delusional about their own situation to understand they could not win and people didn't want o help them more than help DC at the end, till after far too much blood had been spilled.

There is no way for the rebels to win a second civil war either, because they will still be existing and operating from a paradigm that is no longer in effect, if they think they can beat nukes and DC's control of them. And the second they go to an outside power for nukes, this is no longer a 'civil war', but a world war with any power that would attempt it.

As I said, only way a civil war happens the way the Right envisions is if it's among survivors of a full scale exchange with other peer powers, and even then, Continuity of Gov stuff means someone will have the power of POTUS and whatever's left of Congress will get appoint/selected by surviving gov in the states, so rebels breaking away would need a pretty hefty excuse to justify it, like Fallout FEV virus level.

 

[LordsFire]

See, this is why I know the Right is going to lose any domestic conflict that happens in the US, because they think trying to reenact 1776 is actually possible, despite that canned sunshine is in play.

Again, repeating something doesn't increase its level of truthiness.

Apparently you just do not understand anything at all about how warfare is fought.

If canned sunshine nullifies the possibility of a civil war being won by the rebels, why haven't the Russians nuked Ukraine? Why didn't the US nuke Afghanistan? Why didn't the Russians nuke Afghanistan 40 years ago?

 

[Circle of Willis]

See, that would require the rebels to have ways around the permissive action links, which is not really possible to do.

At most the rebels would have makings of some dirty bombs, and rebels using dirty bombs would lose them most internal and international support.

Also, remember, NORAD and the Air Force Academy is in Colorado, along with a large amount of silos, and most of the Navy's nukes are on/near the Lefty coasts, or at sea.

Unless the rebels have massive local AA/airspace superiority, DC and just use whatever air assets it has on hand in loyal areas to grind down the rebels while pinning them in place with cordons and 24/7 drone/sat watch.

A random 21-year old enlisted airman (from Massachusetts no less! Not exactly a ruby-red state to put it mildly) has just managed to leak a bunch of sensitive Pentagon documents, and not even for any apparent purpose greater than impressing his online buddies. I don't doubt that if shit's gotten as bad as a real hot civil war in meatspace, the feds' position even around sensitive assets won't be nearly as secure as they'd like, while the rebels can and will find a lot of ways and a lot of weaknesses up & down DC's chain of command to get whatever they need to ensure a MAD situation.

Also, you think the rebels deploying dirty bombs will cost them support but the government casually nuking its own country in a bid to destroy all opposition and terrorize the survivors into surrender (as well as neutrals into absolute obedience) won't? Bruh, I can't even.

 

[Bacle]

Again, repeating something doesn't increase its level of truthiness.

Apparently you just do not understand anything at all about how warfare is fought.

If canned sunshine nullifies the possibility of a civil war being won by the rebels, why haven't the Russians nuked Ukraine? Why didn't the US nuke Afghanistan? Why didn't the Russians nuke Afghanistan 40 years ago?

None of those conflict threatened DC's hold on domestic power.

A random 21-year old enlisted airman (from Massachusetts no less! Not exactly a ruby-red state to put it mildly) has just managed to leak a bunch of sensitive Pentagon documents, and not even for any apparent purpose greater than impressing his online buddies. I don't doubt that if shit's gotten as bad as a real hot civil war in meatspace, the feds' position even around sensitive assets won't be nearly as secure as they'd like, while the rebels can and will find a lot of ways and a lot of weaknesses up & down DC's chain of command to get whatever they need to ensure a MAD situation.

Also, you think the rebels deploying dirty bombs will cost them support but the government casually nuking its own country in a bid to destroy all opposition and terrorize the survivors into surrender (as well as neutrals into absolute obedience) won't? Bruh, I can't even.

Oh, the stuff with the airman is a fustercluck, and yes, human stupidity can always unravel the best plans. I just don't think the rebels could get to a point of being able to MAD DC, specifically because DC will not allow them to reach that level of threat to begin with before smashing them with their own nuclear hammer.

As to why DC could get away with it, and not the rebels; DC controls the media, the 'legit' nuclear command chain, national sovereignty, the orbital assets, and has control of our international affairs. Rebels don't have that, or at least not without foreign help, and foreign help opens whole other cans of worms about who is actually pulling said rebellions strings.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Unless the rebels have their own nukes, none of it matters, because the Fed gov will still have the ultimate 'I Win' button for use against any rebels forces that actually threaten DC's control.
.

You still repeat this even though multiple people have pretty much demolished your point over the years.

The only relevance to nukes is against cities.

They only have power inside cities.

They'd be trying to win this hypothetical conflict not blow themselves up.

The Soviet union had nukes it did diddly squat to prevent the fall

Also one side can just shutdown the cities by refusing to send food and medicine to them.

Which would cause mass starvation and total urban collapse within months. Weeks if they do what those drunks did in Cali with the power grids.

Nuking those guys just means damaging empty.land or worse farmland you need.

 

[Bacle]

You still repeat this even though multiple people have pretty much demolished your point over the years.

The only relevance to nukes is against cities.

They only have power inside cities.

They'd be trying to win this hypothetical conflict not blow themselves up.

See, again, this is another huge assumption of the Right, about what would be targeted for a strike and what the Dems would justify a nuke against.

I can think a plenty of targets in 'red/rebel areas' that DC may feel justify a nuke if rebels attempted certain actions, and assets to important to be left in rebel hands should they somehow push serious forces into some 'blue/loyal areas'.

This denial of nukes being in play is based on a lot of assumptions of how a civil war would happen that simply ignore a lot of social, technical, political, and intel/security realities of the modern day, and ignore what the Left themselves says they are willing to do.

People want to believe that nukes aren't in play for a civil war, because admitting they are means admitting the rebels cannot win/unseat the powers in DC, thus rendering a lot of Right Wing fantasies about their own power in a domestic conflict rather pointless and foolish.

The sooner people are broken of the notion nukes are not in play for a domestic conflict, the sooner they will understand the realities the Right needs to face if it wants to actually win the culture war and keep civil conflict from reaching this level.