Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The next ACW

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The next ACW

    Audio isn't the best here, but some food for thought;

    What if Civil War broke out between Republicans and Democrats?
    https://youtu.be/T0ep-u1_0T8

    FWIW, I personally would not want to see this happen. I think it might be more tragic and destructive than many think.
    But it seems some of the political rhetoric of our nation can verge and pushing some over this edge.
    Last edited by G David Bock; 25 Apr 19, 18:08.
    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

  • #2
    If you look at this map, what stands out in your mind about a Left - Right, Democrat v. Republican civil war?



    I'd say the most important thing is the Democrats / Left would be starving and have no means of producing the materials to fight such a war.
    If you look at where the US military is based, where most of the major production factories and companies are, and where most of the agriculture takes place, it's all in areas that vote Republican and are Conservative.
    Google (as one example) does the Left little good in a war. So, while there might be a concentration of wealth in areas that the Democrats control, they lack the means to turn that into a war winning advantage, particularly in the short term.

    A "hot" civil war would certainly take the US down a few notches on the power scale, regardless of who won. But, because of how the above is distributed in the US, the Left faces serious, major serious, problems winning one. Their only strategy that can work is win politically first then disarm and tighten the screws of control down on the opposition. Even then, I think they'd have major problems maintaining control even with the reins of power in their hands.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      If you look at this map, what stands out in your mind about a Left - Right, Democrat v. Republican civil war?



      I'd say the most important thing is the Democrats / Left would be starving and have no means of producing the materials to fight such a war.
      If you look at where the US military is based, where most of the major production factories and companies are, and where most of the agriculture takes place, it's all in areas that vote Republican and are Conservative.
      Google (as one example) does the Left little good in a war. So, while there might be a concentration of wealth in areas that the Democrats control, they lack the means to turn that into a war winning advantage, particularly in the short term.

      A "hot" civil war would certainly take the US down a few notches on the power scale, regardless of who won. But, because of how the above is distributed in the US, the Left faces serious, major serious, problems winning one. Their only strategy that can work is win politically first then disarm and tighten the screws of control down on the opposition. Even then, I think they'd have major problems maintaining control even with the reins of power in their hands.
      It wouldn't be a traditional war where battle lines are drawn and supply lines or means of supply matter. More realistically what we'll see are high levels of domestic terror and retaliation attacks.

      31% of the US are democrat, 24% are republican. Republicans do not have the numbers advantage.
      "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
      - Benjamin Franklin

      The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
        If you look at this map, what stands out in your mind about a Left - Right, Democrat v. Republican civil war?



        I'd say the most important thing is the Democrats / Left would be starving and have no means of producing the materials to fight such a war.
        If you look at where the US military is based, where most of the major production factories and companies are, and where most of the agriculture takes place, it's all in areas that vote Republican and are Conservative.
        Google (as one example) does the Left little good in a war. So, while there might be a concentration of wealth in areas that the Democrats control, they lack the means to turn that into a war winning advantage, particularly in the short term.

        A "hot" civil war would certainly take the US down a few notches on the power scale, regardless of who won. But, because of how the above is distributed in the US, the Left faces serious, major serious, problems winning one. Their only strategy that can work is win politically first then disarm and tighten the screws of control down on the opposition. Even then, I think they'd have major problems maintaining control even with the reins of power in their hands.
        One item not reflected in such maps is that many of the areas of one color or the other are mixed in reality. In case of my state, Washington, those blue counties are blue in the dominating city/urban portions, but often have suburban and especially rural areas which are more red-conservative.
        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

          It wouldn't be a traditional war where battle lines are drawn and supply lines or means of supply matter. More realistically what we'll see are high levels of domestic terror and retaliation attacks.

          31% of the US are democrat, 24% are republican. Republicans do not have the numbers advantage.
          Those percentages do vary at times, and it's the swing within the middle range that will matter.
          The Republicans tend to have more firearms, more former military, and can focus on the dense urban areas where the democrats congregate. As pointed out in the link, those democrat dominated cities have no resources for food or other needs and can be isolated even more if needs be.
          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

          Comment


          • #6
            Most peoples will stay home and watch it on the telly. As long as there are sports and silly programming on the tube and crap to eat....most couldn't waddle past their front door if the local gun shows are any indication.

            The revolution/insurrection/uprising/rebellion/resistance will be televised.
            You'll live, only the best get killed.

            -General Charles de Gaulle

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

              Those percentages do vary at times, and it's the swing within the middle range that will matter.
              The Republicans tend to have more firearms, more former military, and can focus on the dense urban areas where the democrats congregate. As pointed out in the link, those democrat dominated cities have no resources for food or other needs and can be isolated even more if needs be.
              That's our most recent count. But, yes, as I said in the other thread the left needs a lot more training and recruiting for their militias.

              Again forming battle lines in a country this vast and diverse is not going to happen.
              "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
              - Benjamin Franklin

              The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

              Comment


              • #8

                A conventional war along geographical oriented political lines would be impossible particularly given that despite what the color map shows there are sizable number of Republicans in Blue country and likewise Dems in Red. The color just shows the majority.

                The most civil war you could get would be domestic terrorism. Think Bleeding Kansas or Ulster.

                As for who's bigger, impossible to tell since dedicated wing states have sizable political minorities who don't show up on the roles because there's no point. Another reason number aren't a clear indicator is that it's not how many you have, it's how many would actually turn out to fight. Most on either side won't.
                A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                  One item not reflected in such maps is that many of the areas of one color or the other are mixed in reality. In case of my state, Washington, those blue counties are blue in the dominating city/urban portions, but often have suburban and especially rural areas which are more red-conservative.
                  It's a starting point to work from. For example, even in a non-shooting war with just low grade terrorism and such, the Left is at a severe disadvantage. They would control primarily urban areas with strict gun control and filled with people who neither have the knowledge, tools, or materials easily at hand to conduct such a conflict.
                  That is, more suburban and rural areas would find more people with things like garages full of tools and equipment to make and do stuff. They'd also be under less government scrutiny making this easier to do. For example, that's how Nichols and McVey made a large truck bomb without anyone taking notice. The Las Vegas shooter, same thing. He could collect the firearms and ammunition unnoticed by anyone.
                  You live in a high rise apartment building in a dense urban environment, that's much harder to do. People notice and report you, and you're done.

                  There is also the issue that large cities are more vulnerable to outages of basic necessities than more rural areas. Loss of electrical power, gas, even stuff that's shipped in, would cripple a city much faster than a suburban or rural area. Again, you live in a high rise apartment and there's no power. That means you have no water, have to walk up and down many flights of stairs, etc. Someone in suburbia or a rural area will have alternatives if that happens. They can easily cook out. If they have a fireplace in the home they can still get heat in the winter to at least some degree.
                  So, the urban setting, highly dependent on outside support, quickly breaks down while the suburbs and rural areas can survive more readily.

                  It would be entirely possible that large "No go" zones particularly for the Left would appear hemming them into remaining in their urban enclaves. They'd be very dependent on controlling law enforcement and the military to keep things under control. If they had serious issues getting those two entities to willingly cooperate, they'd be in serious deep do do.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                    Audio isn't the best here, but some food for thought; What if Civil War broke out between Republicans and Democrats?

                    https://youtu.be/T0ep-u1_0T8

                    FWIW, I personally would not want to see this happen. I think it might be more tragic and destructive than many think.
                    But it seems some of the political rhetoric of our nation can verge and pushing some over this edge.
                    I would dust off my Grampappa's bush distillery and make a fortune again, bootlegging across the border to both sides...

                    Anyone know where big Al can be found, these days?
                    The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
                      A conventional war along geographical oriented political lines would be impossible particularly given that despite what the color map shows there are sizable number of Republicans in Blue country and likewise Dems in Red. The color just shows the majority.

                      The most civil war you could get would be domestic terrorism. Think Bleeding Kansas or Ulster.

                      As for who's bigger, impossible to tell since dedicated wing states have sizable political minorities who don't show up on the roles because there's no point. Another reason number aren't a clear indicator is that it's not how many you have, it's how many would actually turn out to fight. Most on either side won't.
                      I agree. Most Americans won't go to war over a few tweets or a couple percentage points on their taxes.

                      The number of politicos in this country is very small: just a few million people watch cable news. The only reason there's that many viewers is because the networks on both sides pump the airwaves with drama and identity politics. You would have to televise CNN and FOX to the soldiers to keep them motivated.
                      "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

                      "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        There is no desire among modern day Americans for a 2nd civil war 150 years after the 1st one, we live in a different time.

                        There was no civil war during WW1, WW2, the so called Civil rights era although only a few conspiracy theorists propped up such division....so based on that the prospects for a modern civil war are next to none.

                        Also There can not be a civil war in the nuclear armed USA. Someone would launch a nuke and at that point the entire world probably goes up in smoke.

                        Democratic Americans let Trump take the POTUS office after Trump lost the popular vote. There was no civil war there even though the Democratic Americans all across the USA supported Clinton more then did GOP Americans support Trump in 2016.

                        Most Americans are Democrats going by the numbers.. of course the democratic party is not as strong today as it was during WW2 neither is the GOP.

                        Always remember the Democratic party is the party of Jackson and FDR.
                        Long live the Lionheart! Please watch this video
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=jRDwlR4zbEM
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DBaY0RsxU
                        Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.

                        George S Patton

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Stonewall_Jack View Post

                          Democratic Americans let Trump take the POTUS office after Trump lost the popular vote. .
                          WRONG and a LIE
                          Wrong :Popular vote do not elect the potus.And the potus is NOT elected by the American people,but by the Electoral Colleges of the different states .
                          Lie :The Democrats did NOT accept the victory of Trump : they threatened the Grand Electors if they voted for Trump, they exhorted the military to start a coup, they called people to burn the White House, they exhorted people to kill the potus .

                          But as usual, SJ will continue with his disinformation .

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Stonewall_Jack View Post

                            Always remember the Democratic party is the party of FDR.
                            To be the party of a racist is nothing to be proud of it .

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              One might also consider who would do the actual fighting. In the ACW, both sides used predominantly their rural working class. The draft riots were relegated to city dwellers, which might indicate which demographics make up your warrior caste.

                              When you look at modern America, the rural working class is either going to sit out or fight on the anti Democrat side. The city dwellers are very pacifist outside of the small antifa minority types. The military is tiny compared to the population and would be very split and likely against the Democrats.

                              If one was thinking in terms of a violent civil war, one would want a guaranteed source of willing manpower with a culture that accepts violence. Youd want them to be your tame but useful force. And you'd not want them to look outside of you for command guidance or think for themselves as that would necessarily foment different ideas and dissension. Makes you wonder about the Democrats multi generation relegation of huge swaths of minority communities to government dependent poverty. And policies that remove men from domestic life. As if they're now available for service without attachment to any responsibilities at home.....
                              Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X