What I think Civil War Would Bring [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : What I think Civil War Would Bring


el_jewapo
10-17-2012, 18:48
There's a lot of talk about civil war these days, race and class division seems pretty volatile right now. The government is so screwed up, I think it would take something that drastic to bring about any real change. But instead of a reboot of our beloved country, I think it would certainly be the end.

Assuming it gets off the ground. Let's say we have two warring factions and the military splits up with some on each side. I think we're dead. I've never heard much mention of this aspect of civil war, if any. What are Russia, China, North Korea, etc.. doing while we're killing each other off? Probably nothing for the first couple years. Then when we're good and weak from that, I think they will swoop in like vultures and take America. We would probably go in chunks, Mexico would probably take some of the southwestern states with Russia and China diving up the rest. I think civil war brings the end, maybe World War 3, but certainly the end for America. What do you think?

I don't intend this as a speculative thread on whether or not civil war is coming, click pretty much any of the other threads on the first page to join in on that debate, already in progress. This is intended to be a thread about what a civil war would bring.

Rabbi
10-17-2012, 18:52
All things come to an end. At some point, that means war.

We are a long ways from that. We have a lot of steps between where we are now and war. It could take a while. It could happen faster than anyone could imagine but again...not now. Not yet. Not even close.

TK-421
10-17-2012, 18:53
China can't afford to let us go or let us break up, and they certainly can't afford to conquer us. The main reason they have money, and an economy, and decent living conditions, is because of how much stuff we buy from them. If we suddenly stopped buying things from them, their economy would go down the tubes.

427
10-17-2012, 18:55
If there's going to be any unrest in the country, it's going to be the .gov/le against civilians

Bren
10-17-2012, 19:02
There's a lot of talk about civil war these days, race and class division seems pretty volatile right now.

Really? There seems to be a lot less of it that there was in the mid-90's. I've actually been surprised by how little right wing unrest there is, compared to the Clinton era. I'd guess the assault weapon ban is the major difference.

What would a civil war bring? Happiness.

el_jewapo
10-17-2012, 19:02
China can't afford to let us go or let us break up, and they certainly can't afford to conquer us. The main reason they have money, and an economy, and decent living conditions, is because of how much stuff we buy from them. If we suddenly stopped buying things from them, their economy would go down the tubes.

As it is now, you're right. After a couple years of us killing each other off? I don't know. We certainly won't be buying so much crap, just bare necessities.

raven11
10-17-2012, 19:03
China can't afford to let us go or let us break up, and they certainly can't afford to conquer us. The main reason they have money, and an economy, and decent living conditions, is because of how much stuff we buy from them. If we suddenly stopped buying things from them, their economy would go down the tubes.

While its true China owns our debt and between the trade deficit and the interest from our loans makes money hand over fist. The notion that the Chinese need us to keep their economy going is laughable. Japan is one of China's biggest trading partner more so than the US. Britain is already receiving Chinese made cars , not to mention the investment in Africa and South America is giving China almost a monopoly in trade in those parts of the world

NH Trucker
10-17-2012, 19:04
The collapse and division of the United States isn't a new concept. Professor Igor Panarin said something like that, and even worked out how the country would be divided.


But that was a prediction based around the collapse of the US dollar, and was said to happen by the end of 2010.


http://www.infowars.com/russian-professor-collapse-of-america-could-begin-in-two-months/



I think Igor really likes his vodka. :whistling:


As for a civil war, it's going to take something drastic to kick that into action. And IF it ever did happen, I suspect everyone in this country would be out for themselves before there were any unified "sides." But the .gov would call in the UN as a policing force before any power like China or Russia would come here.

Glock20 10mm
10-17-2012, 19:06
I think we are closer than people want to admit or realize. But hey that's what I think. I also think that if we do descend into an all out, even a partial internal armed conflict, it would destroy economies around the world. The Russians or Chinese would then be in a position to assume the status of global currency thereby becoming the defacto superpower.

The rest of your premise sounds plausible, but if we start to go down we will end up taking a good chunk of the world with us. An internal conflict would have serious impacts on global markets as well as disrupt the supply chain to and from the United States. That alone, that economic threat would be enough to catalyze nations powerful enough into attempting their own armed invasion. The only thing that would slow them down, and that's if it didn't disband or disintegrate, would be our navy.

There are many plausible scenarios, and the majority of them end very badly for ALL of us. But continuing on the path we are on (and we most certainly will under either of the two clowns up for election) we will end the same... just at a slower rate.

PS: That means Canada would be able to walk in and take over... Molson's anyone?

RonS
10-17-2012, 19:06
Whatever happens will not be logical or predictable. If you read history it is always simplified and condensed. The people who lived it didn't experience it like that. I hope the wheels stay on but I would not be shocked to wake up tomorrow and read about federal troops in some city trying to stop a race war. If it happens I expect that the driving forces will be class hatred but it will manifest itself as race war because people will just lash out at obvious targets.

el_jewapo
10-17-2012, 19:08
As for a civil war, it's going to take something drastic to kick that into action. And IF it ever did happen, I suspect everyone in this country would be out for themselves before there were any unified "sides." But the .gov would call in the UN as a policing force before any power like China or Russia would come here.

I think we're most of the UN policing power.

concretefuzzynuts
10-17-2012, 19:11
We are no where near that point. The bulk of Americans seem to be fat, cheeseburger eating, Honey Boo Boo watching waists of space.

However if it did happen, the military/LEO's would shut it down faster than it started. We are not our founding fathers because this is not a raw society, with vast and unclaimed land and resources. We are a country run by statists and we are far from the constitution as it was intended.

MrKandiyohi
10-17-2012, 19:14
China can't afford to let us go or let us break up, and they certainly can't afford to conquer us. The main reason they have money, and an economy, and decent living conditions, is because of how much stuff we buy from them. If we suddenly stopped buying things from them, their economy would go down the tubes.

I really don't know if the Chinese have any desire to conquer us.

China has been around for thousands of years. I'm guessing their long term plan is to be around, simply as China, for many thousands of years.

They could try to control "the World" or they could be content with controlling "their World". Controlling one of the largest countries and most populous country in the world might be all they ever strive to achieve.

tsmo1066
10-17-2012, 19:15
We are no where near that point. The bulk of Americans seem to be fat, cheeseburger eating, Honey Boo Boo watching waists of space.

However if it did happen, the military/LEO's would shut it down faster than it started. We are not our founding fathers because this is not a raw society, with vast and unclaimed land and resources. We are a country run by statists and we are far from the constitution as it was intended.

Don't look now, buddy, but there's a squirrel doing ...um...intimate things with your ears.

I still love that avatar!

:wavey:

el_jewapo
10-17-2012, 19:15
Again, the point of this thread isn't about what will bring civil war or how it would go down. It's purely a "what if" thread for after the fact. There are thousands of scenarios and thousands of ways for it to play out. I don't really want to get into all that. I'm talking pure end game here.

Do we come out of it a better country? Do we get taken over? Do we squabble a little while and keep things pretty much the same? That's what I'm interested in conversing about at the moment.

ray9898
10-17-2012, 19:17
There is always a percentage of people drawn to sites like this who love to spread their belief that civil war is 'just around the corner'. They basically sit around salivating over the thought of fighting the government or some other group of citizens because it is some dream of theirs.

We are no where near any huge unrest, this is the greatest place on Earth to live.

concretefuzzynuts
10-17-2012, 19:21
Again, the point of this thread isn't about what will bring civil war or how it would go down. It's purely a "what if" thread for after the fact. There are thousands of scenarios and thousands of ways for it to play out. I don't really want to get into all that. I'm talking pure end game here.

Do we come out of it a better country? Do we get taken over? Do we squabble a little while and keep things pretty much the same? That's what I'm interested in conversing about at the moment.

We would become a divided country. Not a two part, North/South, but many hundreds of territories and people looking out for themselves and like minded people within the local boundaries established by groups of similar thought.

Is that more like you are looking for? We have become a selfish society bound to those of likemindedness.

Hef
10-17-2012, 19:22
The global economy relies too heavily upon the U.S. economy to for the rest of the world sit by idly while we collapse into chaos. A civil war here would have a major negative global impact. I believe the UN would step in to try to head off a civil war before we started engaging in large scale fighting.

Rabbi
10-17-2012, 19:23
The global economy relies too heavily upon the U.S. economy to for the rest of the world sit by idly while we collapse into chaos. A civil war here would have a major negative global impact. I believe the UN would step in to try to head off a civil war before we started engaging in large scale fighting.

What the hell would the UN do....shout?

NH Trucker
10-17-2012, 19:25
We would become a divided country. Not a two part, North/South, but many hundreds of territories and people looking out for themselves and like minded people within the local boundaries established by groups of similar thought.

Is that more like you are looking for? We have become a selfish society bound to those of likemindedness.





Then I'm setting up my territory at the closest brewery. :beer:

tsmo1066
10-17-2012, 19:26
Do we come out of it a better country? Do we get taken over? Do we squabble a little while and keep things pretty much the same? That's what I'm interested in conversing about at the moment.

If there is ever another Civil War in the United States, it likely won't be drawn up along convenient, geographical lines like the first one. It would more likely be a class or race war, and that would mean pockets of violence and widespread, low-intensity guerilla warfare and terrorism spread across every city and region, rather than huge armies fighting set-piece battles in the field.

Picture Northern Ireland in the 1970s.

Given that scenario, America's infrastructure would remain more-or-less intact, as opposed to the wholesale destruction associated with large-scale military campaigns like Sherman's March to the Sea. Our nuclear arsenals would also likely remain secure and ready for use as A) I don't see such facilities being compromised by warring factions due to the heavy security involved, and B) I don't think any such Civil War scenario would deteriorate to the point that we would start nuking our own cities.

America would, however, become a very heavily armed hornet's nest that no ground force in the world, even China's, would want to get mired down in.

concretefuzzynuts
10-17-2012, 19:31
Don't look now, buddy, but there's a squirrel doing ...um...intimate things with your ears.

I still love that avatar!

:wavey:

You had your chance, friend! :tongueout:

BTW... you and your family look like a happy crew. Congratulations.

NH Trucker
10-17-2012, 19:32
What the hell would the UN do....shout?



Well, yeah. Those French can be pretty upsetting when they're shouting insults.



http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/cpg1410/albums/userpics/33132/FrenchTaunt.jpg

TK-421
10-17-2012, 19:38
The global economy relies too heavily upon the U.S. economy to for the rest of the world sit by idly while we collapse into chaos. A civil war here would have a major negative global impact. I believe the UN would step in to try to head off a civil war before we started engaging in large scale fighting.

Yeah, that's the thing, everybody's economy is intertwined, why do you think the biggest war is the one in Afghanistan? This is actually the most peaceful the world has been in a long time. Sure a few people die each in the war in Afghanistan, but just think back to WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, when there were several hundreds, if not thousands of people dying every day. One or two each day doesn't sound as bad compared to any of the major wars, even though each death is one too many for this stupid war.

We're not at war with any major countries right now because there isn't any unrest, because we all know that everybody's economy will go to ****. Just look at how massively Europe is being affected by Greece.

AZson
10-17-2012, 19:45
Just wait and see if obama tries to use the UN to take our guns if that scumbag is re-elected. there will be an uprising.

tsmo1066
10-17-2012, 19:51
You had your chance, friend! :tongueout:

BTW... you and your family look like a happy crew. Congratulations.

Thanks! It's good to hear you're enjoying your new-found freedom and bachelorhood. (I know that feeling of relief well!)

nikerret
10-17-2012, 19:55
It could happen faster than anyone could imagine but again...not now. Not yet. Not even close. Quoted for contradiction.

If there's going to be any unrest in the country, it's going to be the .gov/le against civilians

What makes you think ".gov/le" is going to work together if things get that bad? In the small department I work for, there could easily be eight to ten groups of two to three guys who agree against the other several small groups, based on beliefs during all-out unrest.

In history, it has been Government enforcement types who started the physical fighting.

We would become a divided country. Not a two part, North/South, but many hundreds of territories and people looking out for themselves and like minded people within the local boundaries established by groups of similar thought.


This is what I would see. It's already happened/happening. The vast majority have chosen to abstain from violence and let others fight their fight, right now.

Rabbi
10-17-2012, 19:59
Quoted for contradiction.


No. No contradiction at all. The conditions do not exist. Not now, not yet, not even close. That could change faster than anyone could imagine.

What about that did you not understand?

GAFinch
10-17-2012, 20:04
America would, however, become a very heavily armed hornet's nest that no ground force in the world, even China's, would want to get mired down in.

It already is compared to other countries, which makes the government less likely to do something stupid, aside from convincing us to voluntary give up our guns. I know plenty of ordinary, level-headed guys from different walks of life who have been buying additional pistols, additional rifles, a few cases of ammo, and various survival-related items the past four years.

GAFinch
10-17-2012, 20:15
Well-armed populace, largely non-corrupt professional military, a local police force that, like most countries, is more in line with the local populace than with the feds...the federal government would be stupid to initiate an obscene power grab. I could potentially see austerity-related race riots getting out of control and sparking a larger conflict between libs and conservatives. It would be weird, though, cause the red states extend up the middle of the country and the blue states would be split in half. No slavery, an industrial base, an increasingly concentration of defense contractor factories...the reds could easily overcome the blues' seaport advantage.

Hef
10-17-2012, 20:17
What the hell would the UN do....shout?

If things looked bleak, I could see an agreement being made by the president and the UN to send in some sort of military assistance (China?) to stop what would be characterized as a rebellion.

AK_Stick
10-17-2012, 20:21
The global economy relies too heavily upon the U.S. economy to for the rest of the world sit by idly while we collapse into chaos. A civil war here would have a major negative global impact. I believe the UN would step in to try to head off a civil war before we started engaging in large scale fighting.




How would the UN step in?


While its fine and all to say, if you stop and think about it, they really have no ability to do anything, in a country the size of America.


Hell, they can't control violence/issues in Haiti, how would they deal with us?

SCHADENFREUDE
10-17-2012, 20:23
No matter how good people have it in this country they still think they have it tough and need more stuff.

Thinking that logic somehow factors into mad mens plans seems silly to me. People are riled up in every form in this country. You pick your divide and there are disciples. This country is a tinderbox. All it takes is one group of mad men to set it off.

Looking at the apathy of people in this country I don't know how many would be motivated to participate. I personally will do my civic duty and vote. Then I will go home and hope that the crazies on either side can deal with the outcome of a free and fair election. If we lose that then we have lost our country and way of life.

mad220860
10-17-2012, 20:27
While its true China owns our debt and between the trade deficit and the interest from our loans makes money hand over fist. The notion that the Chinese need us to keep their economy going is laughable. Japan is one of China's biggest trading partner more so than the US. Britain is already receiving Chinese made cars , not to mention the investment in Africa and South America is giving China almost a monopoly in trade in those parts of the world

Very true! Sad to see how ignorant people have become. China is building its military as we speak and who is paying for it??? We are! Why so many people dont keep up with current affairs or whats going on in our country is beyond me. Im starting to believe no one cares anymore. We won WWII with the average education at an 8th grade level. I hate to think our boys liberated Europe and sacrificed so much on the alter of freedom so we could take it for granted some 60 years later.

FLIPPER 348
10-17-2012, 20:30
There is always a percentage of people drawn to sites like this who love to spread their belief that civil war is 'just around the corner'.

We are no where near any huge unrest, this is the greatest place on Earth to live.









The place with the true nut-jobs is here"
http://www.assaultweb.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=52



......they outa' charge $1 just to log on and see the show!

tsmo1066
10-17-2012, 20:30
It already is compared to other countries, which makes the government less likely to do something stupid, aside from convincing us to voluntary give up our guns. I know plenty of ordinary, level-headed guys from different walks of life who have been buying additional pistols, additional rifles, a few cases of ammo, and various survival-related items the past four years.

I agree, but let me clarify what I mean by "heavily armed". In the event of Civil War between factions or races in this country, you would see different militias and groups getting their hands on anti-tank weapons, military grade explosives and lots and lots of full-auto weapons that aren't all that common right now. This sort of equipment would become much more commonplace in a sustained, low-intensity guerilla-type civil insurrection.

patermagnus
10-17-2012, 20:33
First some group has to be marginalized so it can be "us" against "them". It will be either racial or religious. Right now (fortunately) racism is not the norm- most people go out of their way not to be labeled a racist. My bet is the rise of religious bigotry- will likely be against muslims or catholics. Currently being antimuslim is almost as avoided as racism. Being anticatholic gets you cheered by the mainstream media. It won't be long before catholics are labeled a hate group, some will be thrown in jail, then some catholics will respond violently. Once that happens, it will degenerate to civil war.

Ruggles
10-17-2012, 20:37
Just remember Texas leaves first, I mean we had our own country before. Plus we still have our own navy :)

Ain't gonna happen anytime soon, as in the next 30 years or more IMO.

Fox184
10-17-2012, 20:59
I'm surprised there is hardly any mention of states rights. If anything there will be some states standing together and the ulitimate threat/possible reality would be succession.

UtahIrishman
10-17-2012, 22:17
Civil unrest...maybe...even likely but not out and out Civil War. It wouldn't serve anyone's interests. Plus there is no division that is distinct enough to point at and say there that's going to start a Civil War.

That may change...how fast is anyone's guess.

JW1178
10-17-2012, 22:19
Civil war like last time? I don't know about that. Not like that. I could see it happening like this, and very soon. Obama loses the election and riots start and spread nation wide, and it gets so out of hand the Police and even National Guard can't contain it. I could be wrong, but I just don't see Obama losing an election and come Jan 21st Romney taking office without some serious "unrest". Minorities are big time pro-Obama, no doubt about that. Even women are more pro-Obama than Romney. A lot of your "victim" type and college students are pro-Obama. So, if Romney wins, "they" will know exactly why, and that's because the "dirty rotten hatefull racist white male" got him in there and don't be superised if there isn't some retaliation.


All I have to say is from Nov. 6 through Jan 21's, you need to stay alert and stay armed.

427
10-17-2012, 22:30
What makes you think ".gov/le" is going to work together if things get that bad? In the small department I work for, there could easily be eight to ten groups of two to three guys who agree against the other several small groups, based on beliefs during all-out unrest.

In history, it has been Government enforcement types who started the physical fighting.

.

I'll give you two examples: LA riots and Katrina. There's already an "us against them" mentality among both the .gov/le types and civilians. It can be read on the this very board.

Besides history has shown the biggest threat to the average citizen has been thier own government.

HollowHead
10-17-2012, 22:39
I'll give you two examples: LA riots and Katrina. There's already an "us against them" mentality among both the .gov/le types and civilians. It can be read on the this very board.

Besides history has shown the biggest threat to the average citizen has been thier own government.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any LEO, Fed or other agent who would rather report for duty instead of protecting their own family if it got that bad. A few years ago, our then sherriff tried to eliminate cross-service by telling LEOs that they couldn't serve on the FD and SAR couldn't serve in the SD and EMS couldn't be LEOs, etc. When questioned at a public meeting, he responded that if the SHTF, he wanted everyone to respond to their primary duty. All assembled said that was with their wives and kids. HH

427
10-17-2012, 22:46
I think you'd be hard pressed to find any LEO, Fed or other agent who would rather report for duty instead of protecting their own family if it got that bad. A few years ago, our then sherriff tried to eliminate cross-service by telling LEOs that they couldn't serve on the FD and SAR couldn't serve in the SD and EMS couldn't be LEOs, etc. When questioned at a public meeting, he responded that if the SHTF, he wanted everyone to respond to their primary duty. All assembled said that was with their wives and kids. HH

What about the military?

If anything happens it'll more than likely be in major population centers like LA and NY. What .gov entity do you think will be called in to restore order? What do you think the .gov will do to prevent other "uprisings" elsewhere in the US?

HollowHead
10-17-2012, 22:57
What about the military?

If anything happens it'll more than likely be in major population centers like LA and NY. What .gov entity do you think will be called in to restore order? What do you think the .gov will do to prevent other "uprisings" elsewhere in the US?

Is there currently enough "military" to control the CONUS? It's a mighty big country. HH

Glotin
10-17-2012, 23:00
Just remember Texas leaves first, I mean we had our own country before. Plus we still have our own navy :)

Ain't gonna happen anytime soon, as in the next 30 years or more IMO.

I'm surprised there is hardly any mention of states rights. If anything there will be some states standing together and the ulitimate threat/possible reality would be succession.

This is more how I see it happening. People (Texas, probably) get fed up and decide to secede.

Texas is the country's second largest, and I'm pretty sure fastest growing economy (go figure... you get economic growth when you don't have stupid liberal taxes and regulations...they also suffered the least from the housing bust).

Anyway, because Texas is such a large part of the US economy, and for other obvious reasons, the President will be forced to act just as Lincoln was. I guess there's a small possibility that under a weak non-leader such as Obama they wouldn't start a war over it.

I'm not sure how the military would respond...

Civil war like last time? I don't know about that. Not like that. I could see it happening like this, and very soon. Obama loses the election and riots start and spread nation wide, and it gets so out of hand the Police and even National Guard can't contain it. I could be wrong, but I just don't see Obama losing an election and come Jan 21st Romney taking office without some serious "unrest". Minorities are big time pro-Obama, no doubt about that. Even women are more pro-Obama than Romney. A lot of your "victim" type and college students are pro-Obama. So, if Romney wins, "they" will know exactly why, and that's because the "dirty rotten hatefull racist white male" got him in there and don't be superised if there isn't some retaliation.


All I have to say is from Nov. 6 through Jan 21's, you need to stay alert and stay armed.

They are already threatening to riot

http://twitchy.com/2012/10/09/new-civility-obama-supporters-threaten-to-riot-if-romney-wins/

And assassinate

http://twitchy.com/2012/10/17/post-presidential-debate-obama-supporters-renew-vows-to-murder-mitt-romney/?utm_source=autotweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter

Mitt Romney if he becomes President.

"I aint gone lie... Food stamps the ****! I mite assasinate romney my damn self if he get elected ! I fuxx wit free 99 on the eats"

It just goes on and on like that...

domin8ss
10-17-2012, 23:35
Yep, this is how I think the civil war would be. Liberals versus Conservatives. Funny thing though. When it comes to guns and knowing how to use them conservatives win hands down. Yes, there are a few liberal gangbangers with illegally obtained firearms, but they are far outnumbered. It really wouldn't be much of a civil war when one side desimates the other quickly. Regardless, I'm ready.

clancy
10-18-2012, 04:32
What the hell would the UN do....shout?

Part of me thinks the UN would spend a year trying to get the votes to pass a non-binding resolution to stop, and part of me thinks the UN would just love the chance to send in armed peacekeepers. Just imagine blue helmeted Pakistanis patrolling our streets. It makes me shudder with fear(not!).

Glock20 10mm
10-18-2012, 11:14
What about the military?

If anything happens it'll more than likely be in major population centers like LA and NY. What .gov entity do you think will be called in to restore order? What do you think the .gov will do to prevent other "uprisings" elsewhere in the US?

I think a percentage would flip the bird and go home to their families. Most would follow orders with a few questioning them.

Mr Spock
10-18-2012, 13:13
Part of me thinks the UN would spend a year trying to get the votes to pass a non-binding resolution to stop, and part of me thinks the UN would just love the chance to send in armed peacekeepers. Just imagine blue helmeted Pakistanis patrolling our streets. It makes me shudder with fear(not!).

No foreign force will ever successfully patrol our streets while Americans own the number of weapons that we do now, and Americans will never give up a meaningful number of weapons without the involvement of a foreign force. Why do you think the statists have taken to destroying our economy from the inside? They know we will never give in to international rule, and they certainly can't force it upon us.

This isn't Iraq, where there's large expanses of nothing and little cover, and where the population is crammed into specific little regions. Try patrolling a NC suburb with the tree line a hundred yards behind the houses on a hill, without getting taken out by a guy with a bolt action and knowledge of the land. Not to mention it'd take at least a million troops to adequately patrol and subdue our large land mass with very expensive supply lines from home countries in Europe or Asia.

Take a few conservative chem engineers or former marines and see how much damage they could do with IEDs to a foreign force just trying to subdue Manhattan...

domin8ss
10-18-2012, 13:32
No foreign force will ever successfully patrol our streets while Americans own the number of weapons that we do now, and Americans will never give up a meaningful number of weapons without the involvement of a foreign force. Why do you think the statists have taken to destroying our economy from the inside? They know we will never give in to international rule, and they certainly can't force it upon us.

This isn't Iraq, where there's large expanses of nothing and little cover, and where the population is crammed into specific little regions. Try patrolling a NC suburb with the tree line a hundred yards behind the houses on a hill, without getting taken out by a guy with a bolt action and knowledge of the land. Not to mention it'd take at least a million troops to adequately patrol and subdue our large land mass with very expensive supply lines from home countries in Europe or Asia.

Take a few conservative chem engineers or former marines and see how much damage they could do with IEDs to a foreign force just trying to subdue Manhattan...

Winner winner chicken dinner

stevelyn
10-18-2012, 13:38
If there is ever another Civil War in the United States, it likely won't be drawn up along convenient, geographical lines like the first one. It would more likely be a class or race war, and that would mean pockets of violence and widespread, low-intensity guerilla warfare and terrorism spread across every city and region, rather than huge armies fighting set-piece battles in the field.

Picture Northern Ireland in the 1970s.

Or the Balkans in the 1990s.

This is more how I see it happening. People (Texas, probably) get fed up and decide to secede.

Alaska will leave before Texas will. The Feral govt has long been in violation of the Alaska Statehood Compact. The biggest sore spot is their hostility towards our resource developement which they said would be our source of revenue as a condition of statehood.

JLB768
10-18-2012, 13:58
We citizens would lose in a civil war involving the military. All one has to do, is watch war vids on youtube/liveleak...

You are hiding around the corner at night with your AR/favorite deer rifle/etc, when down rains lead from an Apache 30mm. Hellfire anyone? The days of defending ourselves against a tyrannical government with our long guns are long gone.

Glotin
10-18-2012, 14:30
I think a percentage would flip the bird and go home to their families. Most would follow orders with a few questioning them.

I think you've never served in the military.

We citizens would lose in a civil war involving the military. All one has to do, is watch war vids on youtube/liveleak...

You are hiding around the corner at night with your AR/favorite deer rifle/etc, when down rains lead from an Apache 30mm. Hellfire anyone? The days of defending ourselves against a tyrannical government with our long guns are long gone.

That's assuming that the US military would treat US citizens the same as insurgents. That's a pretty large assumption.

A lot of us actually believe in and understand the oath that we took upon entering the service, and continue to take every time we renew our service.

Glotin
10-18-2012, 14:33
Anyone who studies the fall of the Roman republic will see an amazing similarity to what we are now experiencing...

It started with social problems due to provincial corruption and the loss of wealth (land) by the poor thanks to a bubble in the price of land. Then you start to see a redistribution of wealth (land) from the rich to the poor, starting a strong political polarization. Next, Tiberius Gracchus proposed a law limiting the amount of land an individual could own. That's when the class-based violence started. It's also around this time that they started to disregard the 12 tables (their constitution). Gracchus was beaten to death. His brother, trying to continue his policies, was declared a public enemy by the Senate and also died. The assassination of the Gracchi brothers (considered to be among the fathers of socialism) led to further political polarization, which then spread into the military.

...can't make this stuff up.

The polarization of the military is something we haven't seen to the degree and in the same manner as experienced in Rome. We will not see it in the same manner as the Romans, whose soldiers choose to fight for the generals with whom their ideology lined up. Might see it on a smaller scale, who knows.

JLB768
10-18-2012, 14:38
I think you've never served in the military.



That's assuming that the US military would treat US citizens the same as insurgents. That's a pretty large assumption.

A lot of us actually believe in and understand the oath that we took upon entering the service, and continue to take every time we renew our service.

As much as I hate to say it, I have no doubt the military would turn on American citizens if ordered to do so. No different than police ordered to go door to door disarming Americans in NO, they did as ordered...

tsmo1066
10-18-2012, 14:39
We citizens would lose in a civil war involving the military. All one has to do, is watch war vids on youtube/liveleak...

You are hiding around the corner at night with your AR/favorite deer rifle/etc, when down rains lead from an Apache 30mm. Hellfire anyone? The days of defending ourselves against a tyrannical government with our long guns are long gone.

You are presuming that the hypothetical civil war under discussion would be an "us vs. them" engagement between civilians and the United States Military.

I don't think that's a valid presumption. A more likely situation, given a race/class guerilla type war between numerous factions, would involve various elements of the military and National Guard having sympathies with some of the various factions. You may well see helicopters hunting civilian militia groups at night with Hellfires, but you would likely also see that same militia group walking around with Stinger Missiles, NVGs, and radio communications to sympathetic National Guard and/or regular Army units with their own Apaches for support.

Glock20 10mm
10-18-2012, 14:58
We citizens would lose in a civil war involving the military. All one has to do, is watch war vids on youtube/liveleak...

You are hiding around the corner at night with your AR/favorite deer rifle/etc, when down rains lead from an Apache 30mm. Hellfire anyone? The days of defending ourselves against a tyrannical government with our long guns are long gone.

Ummm, many of us civilians are prior service, it would be interesting.

CanMan
10-18-2012, 15:01
There's a lot of talk about civil war these days, race and class division seems pretty volatile right now.

Really? There seems to be a lot less of it that there was in the mid-90's. I've actually been surprised by how little right wing unrest there is, compared to the Clinton era. I'd guess the assault weapon ban is the major difference.

Let's go back a little farther in our own history.... the 60s seemed like a pretty damn*d volatile time to me! What started out as 'peace out brother' turned into sex, drugs & rock and roll. Hippies and Hawks. Nothing much has changed, they've just taken on different names.

footnote: sex, drugs and rock & roll wasn't all that bad.

Glock20 10mm
10-18-2012, 15:09
I think you've never served in the military.



That's assuming that the US military would treat US citizens the same as insurgents. That's a pretty large assumption.

A lot of us actually believe in and understand the oath that we took upon entering the service, and continue to take every time we renew our service.

Yes, I did. 14 years, didn't make my 20 due to injuries. And I don't think I would follow orders if my family was in danger from the very government I was working for.

RonS
10-18-2012, 15:52
When I heard Obama speak at the Bush library dedication I became convinced that he at least considered "orderly transition of power" to be optional. If you assume something you don't bring it up and comment on how unusual it is.

holesinpaper
10-18-2012, 15:52
What the hell would the UN do....shout?

"Peace keep" and rape children. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1538476/UN-staff-accused-of-raping-children-in-Sudan.html They will surely succeed at one of those things.

wjv
10-18-2012, 16:08
And assassinate

http://twitchy.com/2012/10/17/post-presidential-debate-obama-supporters-renew-vows-to-murder-mitt-romney/?utm_source=autotweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter

Mitt Romney if he becomes President.


Which would accomplish what?

Paul Ryan as President. . .

I think the Libs are better off with Romney. .

JLB768
10-18-2012, 16:18
Ummm, many of us civilians are prior service, it would be interesting.

Ummm, do those with prior service, still have access to the same weapons, presently serving members have...

Glotin
10-18-2012, 16:20
As much as I hate to say it, I have no doubt the military would turn on American citizens if ordered to do so. No different than police ordered to go door to door disarming Americans in NO, they did as ordered...

I don't see it. Nobody I serve with. Maybe if the opponents were marginalized somehow...

The military is very different from the police force, and disarming people is very different from killing them.

Yes, I did. 14 years, didn't make my 20 due to injuries. And I don't think I would follow orders if my family was in danger from the very government I was working for.

Do you think you would follow orders if the order was to kill Americans? Doesn't sound like a lawful order to me...

Do you think a lot of the people you served with would be on board for killing Americans?

Which would accomplish what?

Paul Ryan as President. . .

I think the Libs are better off with Romney. .

Yes but you are applying intelligence, foresight and logic... qualities which they lack.

M&P15T
10-18-2012, 16:21
I can't imagine how the sides would split myself. With seemingly so many different views on the important topics, or even what the important topics are, there are just so many possibilities.

I dunno, but whatever would happen, it would be bad beyond belief, especially since we have a huge nuclear stock-pile. If these fell into the hands of folks that would use them on our own soil? Very, very bad.

Our country may end up being an un-inhabital place no one cares about.

Come to think of it, I believe that if a civil war really kicked off in a large scale, the rest of the world would probaly have to unite to try and get control of the nukes to stop armagedon (SP?). We could have troops from several other countries dropping in to take strategic sites and get their hands on the nukes.

JW1178
10-18-2012, 16:38
I don't think the govt would even try to use our own military because they know our military is there to protect the US and the constituion and will turn on the govt. if they were ordered to fire on US citizens. However, the govt might try to use a forien military force as a mercenary to do the job, and in that case, we the people would win. There is no military strong enough to do the task.

Even if the US military were to turn on the American People.... well think of Iraq and Afghanastan.... how many insurgents there? They don't have tanks or Apache's but are unbeatable. The US military would lose. They would come in and take the cities fast, but day by day get drawn down. Plus, it would shut down the country, and how will our military operate then? It can't.

Glock20 10mm
10-18-2012, 16:55
Ummm, do those with prior service, still have access to the same weapons, presently serving members have...

Can't answer that, but I can say that many have the civilian counter part which puts them at an advantage over other civilians. Also there is training. I find it ironic that people believe our military can't be stood up too... yet it has been and continues to be by people living in caves using crap weapons. Get a bunch of pissed off yanks defending their home turf it will make the patriots in those other nations look like amateurs.

Glock20 10mm
10-18-2012, 16:57
I don't see it. Nobody I serve with. Maybe if the opponents were marginalized somehow...

The military is very different from the police force, and disarming people is very different from killing them.



Do you think you would follow orders if the order was to kill Americans? Doesn't sound like a lawful order to me...

I can only speak for myself, but no I would not follow those orders without a really really really good reason for it. I swore an oath to defend the Constitution and I still take that oath very seriously. One reason I am paying attention is if shooting does start I want to know who the enemy is. And right now I see it as the government in it's current incarnation.

Do you think a lot of the people you served with would be on board for killing Americans?

I can only speak for myself, but I do not believe the men I served with would not follow those orders without a really really really good reason for it as well.

Yes but you are applying intelligence, foresight and logic... qualities which they lack.

.....

427
10-18-2012, 17:29
I don't think the govt would even try to use our own military because they know our military is there to protect the US and the constituion and will turn on the govt. if they were ordered to fire on US citizens. However, the govt might try to use a forien military force as a mercenary to do the job, and in that case, we the people would win. There is no military strong enough to do the task.

Even if the US military were to turn on the American People.... well think of Iraq and Afghanastan.... how many insurgents there? They don't have tanks or Apache's but are unbeatable. The US military would lose. They would come in and take the cities fast, but day by day get drawn down. Plus, it would shut down the country, and how will our military operate then? It can't.

Remember the Milgram experiment? It'd difficult to know who would do what when the time comes.

Look at what happened to the Bonus Army. I'll bet they thought that soldiers -some of whom these vets probably served with would turn on them. Patton and MacArthur along Ike were involved.

Then there's Kent State.

AK_Stick
10-18-2012, 19:19
Then there's Kent State.

Well, when you scare armed people bad enough, you'll get a reaction. But its hardly something to use as proof of anything except that scared, armed youth, will shoot when they're afraid/under fire.


You are presuming that the hypothetical civil war under discussion would be an "us vs. them" engagement between civilians and the United States Military.

I don't think that's a valid presumption. A more likely situation, given a race/class guerilla type war between numerous factions, would involve various elements of the military and National Guard having sympathies with some of the various factions. You may well see helicopters hunting civilian militia groups at night with Hellfires, but you would likely also see that same militia group walking around with Stinger Missiles, NVGs, and radio communications to sympathetic National Guard and/or regular Army units with their own Apaches for support.

That sounds plausible, so long as you don't think about it. But realistically, only the Gov't or whatever faction is in majority control, is going to have those assets.


Unless we saw a north/south division again, with a functioning economy on both sides, there simply is no way for a militia to have the capability to support anything more than rag-tag militia infantry operations.


The required benchstock/PLL/Supply requirements for Armor/Aviation/Advanced equipment useage is just too great.


Sure, some militia guys might score a couple sets of NVG's and use them on a here or there basis, but they won't be able to keep them working.



Much like having Militia men walking around with Stingers. Sounds really bad, realistically though, firing a AM-92 you stole from an ASP, if you could figure out how to fire it, at an AH-64, is not going to end well for you. That AH-64, or his partner, is very likely going to kill you for your stupidity.

JLB768
10-18-2012, 21:02
Well, when you scare armed people bad enough, you'll get a reaction. But its hardly something to use as proof of anything except that scared, armed youth, will shoot when they're afraid/under fire.




That sounds plausible, so long as you don't think about it. But realistically, only the Gov't or whatever faction is in majority control, is going to have those assets.


Unless we saw a north/south division again, with a functioning economy on both sides, there simply is no way for a militia to have the capability to support anything more than rag-tag militia infantry operations.


The required benchstock/PLL/Supply requirements for Armor/Aviation/Advanced equipment useage is just too great.


Sure, some militia guys might score a couple sets of NVG's and use them on a here or there basis, but they won't be able to keep them working.



Much like having Militia men walking around with Stingers. Sounds really bad, realistically though, firing a AM-92 you stole from an ASP, if you could figure out how to fire it, at an AH-64, is not going to end well for you. That AH-64, or his partner, is very likely going to kill you for your stupidity.

And that was my point. "If" the military got involved, we civies with our hunting rifles, or whatever weapons we managed to get ahold of out of pure luck, would be easy pickins for those manning the big boys toys. I keep seeing those videos in my head...Cockpit night vision honed in on a bunch of insurgents firing their small arms, oblivious to the pilot and gunner getting ready to turn them into human jello...

tsmo1066
10-18-2012, 21:38
Well, when you scare armed people bad enough, you'll get a reaction. But its hardly something to use as proof of anything except that scared, armed youth, will shoot when they're afraid/under fire.




That sounds plausible, so long as you don't think about it. But realistically, only the Gov't or whatever faction is in majority control, is going to have those assets.


Unless we saw a north/south division again, with a functioning economy on both sides, there simply is no way for a militia to have the capability to support anything more than rag-tag militia infantry operations.


The required benchstock/PLL/Supply requirements for Armor/Aviation/Advanced equipment useage is just too great.


Sure, some militia guys might score a couple sets of NVG's and use them on a here or there basis, but they won't be able to keep them working.



Much like having Militia men walking around with Stingers. Sounds really bad, realistically though, firing a AM-92 you stole from an ASP, if you could figure out how to fire it, at an AH-64, is not going to end well for you. That AH-64, or his partner, is very likely going to kill you for your stupidity.

The "majority faction" might control a good portion of the Regular Army, but given the breakout of our military between Army, Reserves and state-level National Guard forces, there would doubtless be many military units that do not remain loyal to the "majority faction" and instead side with other factions more geo-politically aligned with their own views.

It is unrealistic to presume that the entire military would move in lockstep as a single, homogenous entity when the rest of the nation, as well as the men and officers who make up the various branches and levels of our armed forces, are tearing themselves apart and choosing different sides.

A more realistic scenario would have much of the Regular Army remaining under unified control (albeit with many desertions) while many whole units of the Reserve and National Guard align themselves with the local populations and communities that they hail from.

HollowHead
10-18-2012, 21:39
Well, when you scare armed people bad enough, you'll get a reaction. But its hardly something to use as proof of anything except that scared, armed youth, will shoot when they're afraid/under fire.


Has there ever been even one credible source that the ONG had been fired upon? HH

427
10-19-2012, 00:59
Well, when you scare armed people bad enough, you'll get a reaction. But its hardly something to use as proof of anything except that scared, armed youth, will shoot when they're afraid/under fire.


Aren't the men, trained when they when they join NG?

Who was shooting at them?

BTW, the members of the New Mexico National Guard scared when they BAYONETED 11 people when clearing the campus, right?

AK_Stick
10-19-2012, 02:19
Aren't the men, trained when they when they join NG?

Who was shooting at them?

BTW, the members of the New Mexico National Guard scared when they BAYONETED 11 people when clearing the campus, right?

Training has come a long way since the 70's, but I would bet if you scared some people enough, they would react similarly today.



However, it was reported by the State AG, that they took fire from a sniper. Now, if it was, or a thrown rock, or whatever I couldn't tell you. But there were enough NG's men that claimed they were afraid for their lives to make a plausible claim for it.

Has there ever been even one credible source that the ONG had been fired upon? HH

I beleive that the tape made by one Terry Strubbe, was, when examined by forensic audio experts, was concluded to have captured what sounded like 4 pistol shots, and some sort of confrontation/scuffle before the rifle shots.

As for what if it was, or wasn't I couldn't claim to guess, but it certainly remains possible. And even if they weren't under fire, it wouldn't be impossible for them to have thought they were under fire, given the situation.

Mr Spock
10-19-2012, 04:42
And that was my point. "If" the military got involved, we civies with our hunting rifles, or whatever weapons we managed to get ahold of out of pure luck, would be easy pickins for those manning the big boys toys. I keep seeing those videos in my head...Cockpit night vision honed in on a bunch of insurgents firing their small arms, oblivious to the pilot and gunner getting ready to turn them into human jello...

Who keeps the infrastructure going that provides the parts and fuel for these machines? The civilians in this country.

If the situation devolved into a state where the mil is actively fighting the civilians, the entire support infrastructure for the entire country will have fallen apart. The mil may be able to keep the heavy weaponry/aviation going longer than the rest of us could, but without parts being made and fuel being produced/shipped, they'd have to park them too.

AK_Stick
10-19-2012, 13:10
A more realistic scenario would have much of the Regular Army remaining under unified control (albeit with many desertions) while many whole units of the Reserve and National Guard align themselves with the local populations and communities that they hail from.



Realistically, even if you are correct, since most of the NG heavy combat power, is maintained on AD posts, it would be kept out of their hands should the whole unit decide to align themselves with the other side.


Ontop of that, the NG would have very little combat power, and very little ability to keep themselves functioning for more than a few weeks without a constant influx of supply/pll.


Even if they managed to secure some vehicles, and ammo for those vehicles, they wouldn't be able to maintain/continue operations. Not to mention, without a concerted effort by a combined arms force, they'd be neutralized almost immediately.

IvanVic
10-19-2012, 13:29
There's a lot of talk about civil war these days

There is? I don't think I've heard it mentioned once.

tsmo1066
10-19-2012, 13:34
Realistically, even if you are correct, since most of the NG heavy combat power, is maintained on AD posts, it would be kept out of their hands should the whole unit decide to align themselves with the other side.


Ontop of that, the NG would have very little combat power, and very little ability to keep themselves functioning for more than a few weeks without a constant influx of supply/pll.


Even if they managed to secure some vehicles, and ammo for those vehicles, they wouldn't be able to maintain/continue operations. Not to mention, without a concerted effort by a combined arms force, they'd be neutralized almost immediately.

Truth be told, I don't see ANYONE being able to maintain heavy combat power on any sort of realistic scale should things fall apart along non-geographic lines. Most of the Regular Army's supply chain and depot level maintenance capabilities are centered around civilian-staffed facilities. With the citizenry drawing up battle lines with one another along non-geographical divisions, those facilities would quickly become ineffective. Between sabotage, outright theft and re-direction of completed goods by various loyalists within the ranks, the whole chain would rapidly shut down, and that's without even considering how such facilities are supported logistically.

How could, say, a depot-level aircraft maintenance facility in California possibly remain effective when the civilian trucking company in Denver that feeds it spare parts starts diverting those parts to their local faction and the manufacturing facility in Florida that makes those parts in the first place gets sabotaged by insiders working for yet another faction?

The same applies to virtually every infrastructure and logistics pipeline that feeds the military. Those logistics pipelines, like our economy as a whole, are so completely interdependent on multiple layers of civilian-controlled, cross-regional services that once things start fragmenting, the whole house of cards would quickly collapse.

One year into such a civil war, even the Regular military wouldn't be able to field heavy forces on any kind of realistic scale.

AK_Stick
10-19-2012, 14:00
Similar to your other statement, it sounds really good on paper. But I find it short on realism, and fact.


Generally it seems like an opinion based on lack of familiarity with how our supply system runs/works.

SC Tiger
10-19-2012, 14:13
What the hell would the UN do....shout?

Send in their Aircraft Carriers - oh, wait.
Send in their planes - oh, wait, those are our planes
Send in their tanks - oh, wait, those are our tanks
Send in their troops - oh, wait, those are our troops...

Yeah, pretty much just shout.

tsmo1066
10-19-2012, 15:11
Similar to your other statement, it sounds really good on paper. But I find it short on realism, and fact.


Generally it seems like an opinion based on lack of familiarity with how our supply system runs/works.

I think you are looking at the topic under discussion as a minor insurrection or uprising by a few fringe groups, as opposed to a CIVIL WAR. When I discuss "factions", these are not small groups, but rather whole segments of the population - tens of millions of Americans breaking apart along non-geographic lines for political or racial reasons.

Our military infrastructure, from the Strategic Fuel Reserves, to the plants that make parts and assemble weapons, to the depot-level maintenance facilities and even the support networks on most military posts themselves are all dependent on civilian contractors and workers for their very operation.

The Regular Army, even if one were to assume it somehow remains intact and answering to a single authority (extremely doubtful as the very sort of non-geographically based civil war under discussion along racial or political lines would denote a fracturing of the government itself), simply cannot long secure, control and maintain all of the plants, pipelines, roadways, rail lines and storage facilities needed to keep itself running on a large scale, let alone mount coherent, heavy offensive operations while doing so without a unified (or at least semi-unified) civilian infrastructure supporting it.

muscogee
10-19-2012, 18:15
Do we come out of it a better country? Do we get taken over? Do we squabble a little while and keep things pretty much the same? That's what I'm interested in conversing about at the moment.

No. Look at Mexico. Mexico's economy was on a par with our's before their last civil war. Mexico still hasn't recovered. They just got a new ruling class.

Any revolution in the U.S. will take place at the ballot box. We have too much to lose to blow it up and start again. People may not like representative government, but it's much better than endless juntas.

kirgi08
10-19-2012, 18:18
Yes, I did. 14 years, didn't make my 20 due to injuries. And I don't think I would follow orders if my family was in danger from the very government I was working for.

This,I know I wouldn't.'08.

muscogee
10-19-2012, 18:31
Alaska will leave before Texas will. The Feral govt has long been in violation of the Alaska Statehood Compact. The biggest sore spot is their hostility towards our resource developement which they said would be our source of revenue as a condition of statehood.

Careful now. You're awful close to Russia. Wouldn't want the U.S. to come in and bail you out and turn you into a colony afterwards would you?