I want to avoid a hot civil war at almost all costs. The "almost" refers to the preservation of our liberal democracy, which I will not compromise on
I want to avoid a hot civil war at almost all costs. The "almost" refers to the preservation of our liberal democracy, which I will not compromise on
Granted I'm not a military knower, but I have no idea how a hot civil war in the U.S. would actually work. Seems like it would be an awful combination of The Troubles and Bosnia, but I probably lack imagination and further context.
Blue states vs red states. I've seen people suggest that it's not possible because there isn't the same strong regional divide we had in 1860, but I think that's wrong. You might see some breakaway rural areas from (e.g.) Illinois, but in most cases the majority will be able to impose...
... its will on the minority within a state.
I think that's probably right. There are absolutely MAGA chuds in the northeast who would be copperheads but I suspect most would either shut the fuck up once bloodshed started or would be {REDACTED} by their neighbors.
How does this change when you factor in control of water/electric infrastructure and agriculture?
It mostly means that the fighting would be incredibly desperate and very, very bloody.
So…war
More like the Penninsular War than Ulm campaign but war
We just don't have any analogy for what a civil war within the US would look like. We have so much infrastructure now that we are really not able to handle life without. War in the US would look like the Taping Rebellion but 10x worse, as bad as WW2
Tbh it also depends a lot on where it starts and what the antebellum political divide is at kickoff
A disruption to the US food system also causes global famine
Something that seriously disrupts internal transportation or external shipping has much bigger ripple effects than eg something that is comparatively regionalized or restricted to economally marginal areas
Also I think STL could be a monkey wrench-red state but on the border with a blue state (albeit downstate IL) and with cross-border transiy
cities vs rural areas, more likely. It's not like Chicago is going to agree with rural Illinois on which side to be on (or Detroit and the rest of Michigan, or Cleveland and the rest of Ohio, or Pittsburgh/Philly and the rest of Pennsylvania)
I think the obstacle there is army structure. The 1860 US Army was built on a small federal officer cadre, which in time of war would gain mass by raising and absorbing state militias. That system lends itself very well to being split along state lines. The modern, federal standing army? Less so.
The National Guard is the closest you get to the old state militias. But even that is both smaller compared to the federal army, and more dependent on the federal army for enablers, than those 1860 militias.
We are John Brown Stan accounts. We hope the guilt of the nation can be purged with but a little bloodshed.