What if... the Second American Civil War occurred?

[Akibahara]

I've posted this on various 'versus' boards, now I'd like to hear the opinions of my CBR compatriots.

Now, I've personally heard it'll be Democrats vs. Republicans, mass riots, yada yada yada. But... let's hear your opinion. What would it be over? What would the sides be? Who would win? And most importantly... what side would you be on?

Rules:

Scenario One: No allies, no WMDs.

Scenario Two: Allies, still no WMDs.

[penguin-in-leather-jacket]

i think there's no chance in hell the US will ever have another civil war; if we do, it certainly won't be over the current political parties. civil wars need much bigger causes than that; i really can't envision anything likely to cause it. nothing currently relevant seems big enough. it would most likely have to be something new.

if it ever does look like the US is going to split like that, the rest of the world would wait on us to solve it ourselves, or else offer advice from safe distances. they will certainly not take sides.

the idea of WMD's being used is simply laughable.

$0.02

[Endless_Legend]

There won't be a civil war. There might be a rash of militia uprisings. There are alot of crazy, violent, ultra-right-tea-party militias who fantasize about that stuff. It's part of the "prepper" community on the internet. They salivate over the idea that the day will come soon when federal troops will come for them to take their land, money, women, etc.

You can just look at the news, at the comment sections of gun blogs, and see the crazies ranting about how "obummer" is going to use FEMA to impose martial law. (not surprisingly, the crazy militia types are also almost always massive racists)

The recent Bunkerville situation with Clive Bundy and how all those militias rallied around him when the Beareau of Land Management (rightly) tried to serve a warrant to impound his cattle that he had been grazing on public land. You had hundreds of guys show up. Militia were pointing scoped rifles at federal agents and threatening to shoot them. It was crazy.

BLM, correctly, backed off in the interest of public safety. There were kids, and women, and other bystanders just standing next to the militia guys on the overpass. There was no way they could have forced the issue without alot of collateral loss of life, and no agency head wants to get his officers kills or preside over another Waco.

Immedietly after this, right-wing blogs started calling this "The Battle of Bunkerville".

[Endless_Legend]

Anyways, what I'm saying is that this kind of thing will keep happening until eventually shots are fire and there really *is* some kind of battle between federal agents and some militia, which will prompt a whole lot more to aggressively instigate the same sort of thing.

Thing is, they'll lose, because the American people will never be behind them. Sure, a very small paranoid rural portion might be, but the American population is overwhelmingly suburban, urban, and will not tolerate violent uprising or threats for very long. In general, the average American (for better or worse) still trusts their government, and knows it to still be a necessary thing to have public order.

Plus, we'd see quickly that militias answer to no-one. They do whatever they want. We know because we've seen the same pattern in plenty of third-world countries where militias spring up: the country fragments and the government basically can't enforce civil order anymore.

Except that wouldn't happen here, because unlike in those smaller countries, these militias *wouldn't* have support of most of the people, and we actually have a large, professional, competent military that take take militias apart pretty easily.

[Endless_Legend]

So, to answer your scenario:

The sides:
Side A: fragmented, crazy militias
Side B: Federal, state, county, city law enforcement, and the National Guard

Reasons: crazy militia agendas
Outcome: In every case, militias are defeated and most members either are killed, or surrender and are arrested/prosecuted. This might go on for a while, maybe even a few years.

What side I'm on: Public order, safety, and the United States government. Because at least the Federal (and State/local) governments theoretically answer to me and to voters. Militias answer to *nobody* but their own crazy leaders, and I have no illusions about what would be done with me (I'm latino) in the unlikely event that militias were to come to power in my area.

Of course, that would never happen, because I live in a pretty safe, well-off suburban town near a large city.

[Jonathan]

I'm not saying I think any of its real, but sometimes you hear about different conspiracies to put identification chips or medical chips or something in people forcefully. If they really tried that, I think that could get a second civil war going.

[Endless_Legend]

I'm not saying I think any of its real, but sometimes you hear about different conspiracies to put identification chips or medical chips or something in people forcefully. If they really tried that, I think that could get a second civil war going.

That's tinfoil hat nonsense. Would never happen, and if it somehow did, there would be a public outcry, and probably some sort of massive investigation that would lead to alot of Washington leaders resigning.

Meanwhile, people would be lining up around the block at every doctor's office and clinic, wanting to have their "chips" (or whatever) removed.

[The Chou Lives]

1: You spam the thread way too much.


2: It will take a lot more than crazed gun trotters to start a true "war."

3: If it came to said A vs B. Well the Feds should be fair off better training and equipment. Unless you throw in Black Market tools, and if the nutters actually know what their doing.

[Endless_Legend]

2: It will take a lot more than crazed gun trotters to start a true "war.".

I guess you missed my very first sentence where I said:

There won't be a civil war. There might be a rash of militia uprisings.

As for your point 1, no. It's a complex issue. It requires complex discussion.

[Jonathan]

1: You spam the thread way too much.


2: It will take a lot more than crazed gun trotters to start a true "war."

3: If it came to said A vs B. Well the Feds should be fair off better training and equipment. Unless you throw in Black Market tools, and if the nutters actually know what their doing.

Well yes, states declaring independence and integrating the military forces stationed within into the state's(and New Confederacy's) military would be necessary to have much chance to put up a real fight. And getting those bases to go along with it(much less to not actively try to stop it) could be a decent sized hurtle in and of itself.

[T51R]

I don't think the preppers are going to last very long. The first Civil War, you had good commanders and proper armies on both sides. It takes more than bodies, guns and ammunition to put an army together, and that isn't done in a day. Its sure as hell isn't done on the internet because you need to TRAIN together in order to fight together.

So its highly doubtful that there's gonna be another civil war. Maybe an uprising of nutters, but even if the federal authorities lose its not like the rest of the world is going to sit back and not assist. The rest of us have a stake in America whether you want to admit or not.

[MidTierHero]

Considering how the federal government has shredded various constitutional freedoms in the past twelve years, I would say that would be the cause of any civil war, except most Americans are too apolitical and apathetic to care, apparently, and the ones who do get marginalized as "nutters" by the mainstream media.

[Captain Smith]

Is speed equalized?

Haha - ain't gonna happen in an organized fashion like the Civil War where the southern states were legal entities that could form an oppositional force with a territorial basis. That doesn't exist in the current USA. Even states that vote for one party usually have 30 to 40% that support the other. Economy collapse or some disaster might lead to social disruption but you are not going to see Dems vs. Republicans.

[Guy Smiley]

So, to answer your scenario:

The sides:
Side A: fragmented, crazy militias
Side B: Federal, state, county, city law enforcement, and the National Guard

Reasons: crazy militia agendas
Outcome: In every case, militias are defeated and most members either are killed, or surrender and are arrested/prosecuted. This might go on for a while, maybe even a few years.

Eh, there's an easier way to deal with this: These are the same guys who were petitioning to have Texas secede from the union to create some sort of neo-con/tea-party/Rupert Murdoch paradise. The solution? Let 'em. Encourage anybody who thinks that'd be a great government to live under to move there. In fact, make sure that the politicians and media types who've been encouraging the nutters go with them. Then take a page from their books and build a giant f-off anti-immigration wall between the rest of the U.S. and Texas. Then wait for Mexico to decide they want their land back.

[MidTierHero]

Standard Statist reply.