US civil war?

[esse_est_percipi]

What are the chances that a civil war erupts or states seceding from the union if one side doesn't accept the election results due to whatever reason?

 

[Ghost2211]

Fairly likely I would say since a very large portion of us hate Trump and feel the only way he could be back in offices is shenanigans.

 

[Brick In The Wall]

Zero, there won't be a new civil war because the military would make short work of it. Any state that tries to secede will lose Federal funding and be immediately re annexed.

 

[Ghost2211]

Zero, there won't be a new civil war because the military would make short work of it. Any state that tries to secede will lose Federal funding and be immediately re annexed.

Lol right? Last time US citizens try to stand up for themselves during the racial issues they all got teargas and attacked. Welcome to freedom.

 

[Lupgevif]

Miniscule. At most, riots, which will be subsided by military forces, if needed. Maybe some die, but no "war".

 

[waived]

Zero, there won't be a new civil war because the military would make short work of it. Any state that tries to secede will lose Federal funding and be immediately re annexed.

This is not how civil war works. The military could become involved or the state could retreat into a comfortable turtle position and the current paramilitary groupings would in fact go hard and war. "States" as individual entities are having their legitimacy eroded, the paramilitary groupings are overlapping heavily with domestic police forces, the national guard, and the military proper. There are multiple examples every day of extra-military extra-police activity being carried out by militia forces.

 

[Brick In The Wall]

This is not how civil war works. The military could become involved or the state could retreat into a comfortable turtle position and the current paramilitary groupings would in fact go hard and war. "States" as individual entities are having their legitimacy eroded, the paramilitary groupings are overlapping heavily with domestic police forces, the national guard, and the military proper. There are multiple examples every day of extra-military extra-police activity being carried out by militia forces.

There are no para military groups left that aren't funded by the alphabet agencies. The FBI sweeped all of those up in the 90s and early 00s. The only way I could see a "civil war" happening is between two factions of our own government.

 

[waived]

There are no para military groups left that aren't funded by the alphabet agencies. The FBI sweeped all of those up in the 90s and early 00s. The only way I could see a "civil war" happening is between two factions of our own government.

This is objectively false.

 

[Brick In The Wall]

This is objectively false.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[waived]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

There are more than enough ways for you to search the news, documentary production sites like Vice, Twitter, and so on, to see that within the last week there has been extremely high profile paramilitary activity within the United States. Outside of that week time span there has been Charlottesville and Kenosha to name two, and also armed roadblocks and check points, organized and armed patrols of city streets, armed intimidation of the population generally. You don't even have to pick a side to see the direction things are going but it's unfathomable to me to deny its existence.

 

[Good4Nothing]

The military would fracture, as well. They're citizens, just like the rest of us. Some are liberal democrats, some are conservative republicans. If civil war breaks out we will be watching our own military bombing our own troops on television. Not a lot of room for us to fight, unless you think you can take on drones and tanks with your AR-15.
Hmm... now that I mention it, that might be a good method...

I'm sure there will be the small gangs of rioters fighting for the change they believe in, but they'll go home when the army shows up and starts blasting their limbs and heads off.

I don't believe a civil war will happen. If it does, it'll be squashed fast. A footnote in history. A minor inconvenience.

 

[Brick In The Wall]

There are more than enough ways for you to search the news, documentary production sites like Vice, Twitter, and so on, to see that within the last week there has been extremely high profile paramilitary activity within the United States. Outside of that week time span there has been Charlottesville and Kenosha to name two.

American news is controlled disinformation. A small handful of mega corporations own everything.

 

[waived]

For those who don't believe a civil war will happen- I don't believe any of you have mentioned you think this because you believe the climate doesn't carry with it enough tension. The reasons you are suggesting are that you can't imagine the military, or paramilitary, killing people and being killed, and people forming paramilitary groupings for protection, power, or whatever. What exactly is it that you think happens during civil war? You are all correct in saying that just because conditions are right doesn't mean it is going to happen.

American news is controlled disinformation. A small handful of mega corporations own everything. I was in Cville during the "riot" and it definitely didn't happen how they say it did.

There is agitation propaganda and money to be made everywhere but to say that you cannot look at it to see that something is happening is complete nonsense. The reason is because you are capable of telling when and why a news agency is slanting their reporting. It isn't that a shooting didn't happen at all it's that gun control is bunk and being used as a political token. Also what happened in cville is what actually happened and to suggest otherwise makes you sound like a lunatic. We know what happened because of on the ground at the time reporting from major and independent sources, video and audio footage, and the events reoccurring in the same way backed by the same sentiments and rhetoric.

 

[Brick In The Wall]

For those who don't believe a civil war will happen- I don't believe any of you have mentioned you think this because you believe the climate doesn't carry with it enough tension. The reasons you are suggesting are that you can't imagine the military, or paramilitary, killing people and being killed, and people forming paramilitary groupings for protection, power, or whatever. What exactly is it that you think happens during civil war?


There is agitation propaganda and money to be made everywhere but to say that you cannot look at it to see that something is happening is complete nonsense. The reason is because you are capable of telling when and why a news agency is slanting their reporting. It isn't that a shooting didn't happen at all it's that gun control is bunk and being used as a political token. Also what happened in cville is what actually happened and to suggest otherwise makes you sound like a lunatic.

This is why I don't often discuss politics or religion because people entrench themselves in their beliefs. We could both provide supporting facts or evidence all day long and it'll change nothing.

So again I'm going to respectfully agree to disagree.

 

[waived]

This is why I don't often discuss politics or religion because people entrench themselves in their beliefs. We could both provide supporting facts or evidence all day long and it'll change nothing.

So again I'm going to respectfully agree to disagree.

What actually happened is that you did talk politics and didn't present a compelling argument. You just essentially said that you refuse all news and information as being a conspiracy.

 

[Grav]

I'm sure there will be the small gangs of rioters fighting for the change they believe in, but they'll go home when the army shows up and starts blasting their limbs and heads off.

I don't believe a civil war will happen. If it does, it'll be squashed fast. A footnote in history. A minor inconvenience.

I agree. T/he first part of a civil war is doing something, which now that we're closing on Black Friday becomes less and less. There will be the same groups getting riled and the same groups countering those but that's it. Most people will just watch. The groups that were most active this summer were allowed to do so; once actual "fighting" takes place they back down. Both parties play to their base and let things run for a while until it gets serious. The city I'm near said and did nothing this summer so the groups pushed more. Eventually a point is hit where even those who benefit from chaos will change their stand: Chicago as example; everything was allowed to go on until the money area got hit then the tune of the mayor changed. Most of the US is centrist and the extremes are allowed to flourish in their "areas" but once it starts to spread out they lose support. More people are worried about the economy vs anything else. As the economy recovers, which it will at some point, tensions drop except for the hardcore fringe who will stay a sideshow.

 

[Deleted member 23374]

Soooooooo, night raids, sniping gassing etc., biological and chemical "approaches" aimed at the food supply, poisoning/irradiating water tables and reservoirs, sabotaging power facilities, IED'S I could go on. Certainty seems foolish. Foolishness seems a certainty. But who knows it could all whiff away like a fart. Think like poor beset non-white people from another country. How well are tech and muscle succeeding there ? In the end, death devours all. Why sweat it ?

 

[Grav]

The first part of any civil war is support and there's not enough support for either side to try it. We had some of that around hear years ago and it very quickly was ended because neutral people had to make a choice and they chose stability (which happened to be the norm at the time). The ones involved became sideshows and their support dried up. That being said both parties need to make adult statements that the rule of law will prevail and stop with the "oh there might be violence if I lose" and "oh I may not leave office". That crap needs to be shutdown by their own parties in a loud voice. The media likes to play it up because blood sells instead of any hint of rationality.

 

[Brick In The Wall]

What actually happened is that you did talk politics and didn't present a compelling argument. You just essentially said that you refuse all news and information as being a conspiracy.

I never said all news is disinformation, a lie is best hidden between two truths. I showed how the media is controlled by a few select corporations thus there is an obvious bias.

As for a "compelling argument" I'm not here to argue with you. You hardly compelled anything by pointing out borderline onion news sites like Vice or social media such as Twitter. Ad hominem attacks such as calling me a lunatic are also a sure fire way to lose ground in any sort of "debate."

I said numerous times that we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[waived]

People seem to be forgetting that the police have not responded and or retreated on more than one occasion in very recent memory because they were threatened by one side or the other and did not have the assets required to engage, sometimes for extended periods of time. Their power is not finite, this is not a movie, the veil grows thin. The presidential candidate's campaign convoy was surrounded and run off the road by paramilitaries to which the response was no more campaigning in that state because it is a threat. In the 90's the paramilitary threat didn't even fully revolve around basic long guns but now has expanded to involve large numbers of people with military hardware, training, and recruitment campaigns that are more popular than conventional political campaigns and it's really no surprise. The ranks are filled with current and ex police and military.

The previous relative lull applying to the major police, military, and political forces in the first world are not equipped to mitigate the increasingly intensifying pressures and fallout of various crises and as history has shown us States harden as the ranks of their previously existing police, military, and political forces erode because nobody really signed up to kill their brothers and sisters. These people have been and are being replaced by those who have a different ethos and will and are even eager to.

I never said all news is disinformation, a lie is best hidden between two truths. I showed how the media is controlled by a few select corporations thus there is an obvious bias.

As for a "compelling argument" I'm not here to argue with you. You hardly compelled anything by pointing out borderline onion news sites like Vice or social media such as Twitter. Ad hominem attacks such as calling me a lunatic are also a sure fire way to lose ground in any sort of "debate."

I said numerous times that we'll have to agree to disagree.

You implied that there was no paramilitary activity happening since the 90's and early 00's to which I replied for you to look at some sources to which you then replied that the media isn't trust worthy because it's "controlled disinformation". You have forfeit having your opinion taken seriously when you reply to things like that and if you didn't want your opinion on display then don't post in threads like this. Vice news does documentary interviews with the actual people who are actually doing things at actual locations for the viewer to then make up their mind and/or read further. To suggest that Vice is like Onion is ridiculous as one is journalism and the other is satire. You realize that on twitter there is live updates of video and photos and reporting of things that happen, often times live. I didn't call you a lunatic I said you sounded like one because when you say things like that you do sound like one.

 

[Fragile]

Not a single chance, at least not a "real" civil war, it's much more likely to be an ideological one. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that a civil war is a thing of the past simply because of the state of technology. At least in the US.

I mean, we are talking about a nation that has an armament of weapons capable of, literally, destroying half the planet. that alone is a threat strong enough to scare off any opposition. But let's pretend that nuclear weapons don't exist or the more likely possibility of them never using them against their own country, they still have drone warfare and the most advanced combat jets, combine that with the richest army in the world with near infinite resources...

and let's not even talk about the other indirect ways that technology would make a civil war impossible, like the advanced surveillance technologies, communication and satellites.

But I'm sure that a militia armed with a couple of ar-15 can overpower all of that, COMBINED.

 

[Disappointered]

I also believe there are no paramilitary organizations that aren't controlled (and funded) by an alphabet agency of some sort. Whatever disorder may occur I suspect it will fit into a pretty orderly scenario when viewed from a wider angle.

 

[_Kaira_]

I'd say a good decent chance of a lot more riots and looting. Full on civil war? Debatable.

 

[Fragile]

People seem to be forgetting that the police have not responded and or retreated on more than one occasion in very recent memory because they were threatened by one side or the other and did not have the assets required to engage, sometimes for extended periods of time.

You do know that the police and the military are completely different things, and that the police can't retaliate in a lethal way against a multitude?

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

The US civil war has already been happening over the internet. You can't go anywhere without running into the basic "us vs. them" mentality that our ancestors thrived on. No social media or internet community is safe, not Twitter, not 4chan, not even SS.

That said I'd much rather have that than actual warfare though. My money is on the side that actually wants to have guns and other weapons though.

 

[waived]

Not a single chance, at least not a "real" civil war, it's much more likely to be an ideological one. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that a civil war is a thing of the past simply because of the state of technology. At least in the US.

I mean, we are talking about a nation that has an armament of weapons capable of, literally, destroying half the planet. that alone is a threat strong enough to scare off any opposition. But let's pretend that nuclear weapons don't exist or the more likely possibility of them never using them against their own country, they still have drone warfare and the most advanced combat jets, combine that with the richest army in the world with near infinite resources...

and let's not even talk about the other indirect ways that technology would make a civil war impossible, like the advanced surveillance technologies, communication and satellites.

But I'm sure that a militia armed with a couple of ar-15 can overpower all of that, COMBINED.

This is also not how civil war works. People seem to think that the military during civil wars sides with the population. The population is already split because it is a civil war so who sides with who? Do they turtle and let other sides fight? We are certainly not in a civil war but the point of no return as been reached and there's no going back. As I mentioned in my previous post the erosion of people from positions in the military and police and politic, that was pretty awful to begin with, ends up renewing the ranks with those of a different ethos. The days of "a militia armed with a couple ar-15's" died in the 90's and even then they were more capable than that. Now they have direct ties to the military and police which gives them an immense amount of power. The state will do what it does and side with fascism, no doubt, and anything else is naive and ahistorical.

You do know that the police and the military are completely different things, and that the police can't retaliate in a lethal way against a multitude?

haha

My money is on the side that actually wants to have guns and other weapons though.

Indeed.

 

[Fragile]

This is also not how civil war works. People seem to think that the military during civil wars sides with the population. The population is already split because it is a civil war so who sides with who? Do they turtle and let other sides fight? We haven't seen that yet and we've only seen the opposite so far. We are certainly not in a civil war but the point of no return as been reached and there's no going back. As I mentioned in my previous post the erosion of people from positions in the military and police and politic, that was pretty awful to begin with, ends up renewing the ranks with those of a different ethos. The days of "a militia armed with a couple ar-15's" died in the 90's and even then they were more capable than that. Now they have direct ties to the military and police which gives them an immense amount of power. The state will do what it does and side with fascism, no doubt, and anything else is naive and ahistorical.


haha


Indeed.

Well, you completely ignored my point about technologies, and I never said that the military would stand with the population. seems like you just want to present your position.

So as someone wiser than me said above, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Good luck on the civil war!

 

[waived]

Well, you completely ignored my point about technologies, and I never said that the military would stand with the population. seems like you just want to present your position.

So as someone wiser than me said above, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Good luck on the civil war!

My reply was that the political, military, police, and intelligence participates in the civil war and their technologies, tactics, and strategies are also utilized by the population, which is what we're seeing. We're seeing a shedding of former members of those groupings over time as shit gets real and those people are replaced with other people who have a different ethos which is that from the current times. That is, one side or the other of the civil war. We have seen enough evidence to know that it is approaching civil war because of other civil wars that have happened elsewhere in the world and their characteristics. What the attributes of civil war actually look like is not nuclear, it's not a classical clash of power. It is insurgent. The military will be deployed to protect various assets and limit its involvement otherwise. Keep in mind that the US military and militaries like it have a very poor track record of being able to control activity in countries that are the size of us states.

Looking back at this thread and the number of objectively false and disingenuous things that have been said, coupled with a user suggesting that checking out live postings on twitter from people at the source of something that's happening and major in-the-spotlight documentary journalism that seeks a level of peer review to be taken seriously in this specific case, on current events many of which covering the exact topics we're discussing here, are "misinformation", I'm going to have to say that I in fact disagree that much of the posts in this thread even qualify as opinions.

 

[Brick In The Wall]

I'm going to have to say that I in fact disagree that much of the posts in this thread even qualify as opinions.

You've yet to properly cite or provide anything yourself other than opinion. But apparently your opinion is the only one that matters because everyone else's doesn't even qualify as such.

This is the last time I'm going to reply to you on this subject. I've repeatedly and respectfully tried so disengage you and I ask that you not continue to attack my views or slander me with ad hominems. Have a great day.

 

[ForcedLifeResistant]

I'm gonna share a couple of videos for those who say that the US military can't be challenged in any civil war kind of scenario. I'm not a veteran, so I can't back up his claims with any kind of first-hand knowledge. But, as I believe he says, there are examples of unconventional forces holding their own against the US military (e.g., Vietnam, Afganistan), and these forces were, predominantly, not made up of US military trainees. As mentioned, their are millions of US (and other) military veterans all throughout the country.





Personally, I think it's more likely that our intelligence community would quell a would-be civil war before it ever got off the ground. Between the NSA collecting all forms of data from everyone, at all times, and CIA officers being trained in psychological, economic, and cyber warfare (and, of course, the FBI, the ATF, etc., let alone the untold number of private entities these organizations contract out to, and all of it bolstered by machine learning algorithms, predictive analytics, biometrics, etc.), it's hard to imagine forces being able to organize without quickly being muzzled. That's unless some significant societal breakdown was already underway.

Not a single chance, at least not a "real" civil war, it's much more likely to be an ideological one. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that a civil war is a thing of the past simply because of the state of technology. At least in the US.

I mean, we are talking about a nation that has an armament of weapons capable of, literally, destroying half the planet. that alone is a threat strong enough to scare off any opposition. But let's pretend that nuclear weapons don't exist or the more likely possibility of them never using them against their own country, they still have drone warfare and the most advanced combat jets, combine that with the richest army in the world with near infinite resources...

and let's not even talk about the other indirect ways that technology would make a civil war impossible, like the advanced surveillance technologies, communication and satellites.

But I'm sure that a militia armed with a couple of ar-15 can overpower all of that, COMBINED.

The US government isn't going to nuke its own cities to stop a civil war. It'd be like burning down your house to stop a termite infestation.