December 21, 2023 - 4:15pm
It’s a notion which 10 years ago would have been unthinkable: that America might be on the brink of a second civil war. Yet, as the 2024 election approaches, high-profile Republicans are discussing a “national divorce”, leading academics are examining the possibility, and Hollywood is cashing in. The trailer for Alex Garland’s upcoming film Civil War has recently been released and it paints a truly dystopian picture, from the Lincoln Memorial shrouded in black smoke to the federal government conducting air strikes on its own citizens. But is it realistic? Were a second civil war to erupt in 2024, would it really play out in such a blockbuster fashion?
The Civil War trailer implies a conflict between the “Western Forces” of California and Texas, the “Florida Alliance”, and the federal government. This seems implausible on several levels. Would ultra-liberal California really ally itself with the Lone Star State? Texas may be slowly turning purple, but Waco is still a long way from San Francisco, politically as well as geographically. The “Florida Alliance” has slightly more credibility, given its dual status as Donald Trump’s power base and “the state where woke goes to die”. Even so, given that more than a fifth of Floridians are pensioners, the Sunshine State is far from the ideal petri dish for developing an insurrection.
Garland is right to identify California as a potential secessionist, however. Much of the debate around the possibility of a second civil war assumes the impetus would come from the MAGA right. But Professor Adam Smith from the University of Oxford, an expert in the (historical) American Civil War, argues that it’s more likely to be led by the progressive Left.
Consider the following scenario: California, a net contributor to the federal government, decides not to implement a policy imposed by a Republican president — for example, anti-abortion legislation. In response, other Democratic governors follow suit, perhaps in New England or Northwestern states such as Oregon and Washington. Very quickly, a constitutional crisis has emerged. As Smith tells me, “it’s not hard to see a situation where the people talking about federalism and states’ rights are the blue states […] especially with a Republican president like Trump and a conservative-dominated Supreme Court.”
Then there’s the question of how the conflict itself would be fought. The trailer for Civil War shows snipers perched atop Manhattan skyscrapers and tanks rolling through DC. Powerful though the imagery is, this is also extremely unlikely. America has already seen an alarming rise in militia groups, but these rebels would never have the power to resist federal troops. Stephen Marche, author of The Next Civil War, tells me:
Despite its many over-the-top indulgences, Civil War, set to be released in April, asks a crucial question: is America on the brink? A conventional academic definition of civil war entails a thousand deaths per year. This threshold could easily be passed through an escalation of domestic terrorism, which Barbara F. Walter, author of How Civil Wars Start: And How To Stop Them, notes has been on the rise since the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995.
Earlier this year, former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio was jailed for 22 years for treason over his role in the Capitol riot. Mainstream political candidates refute the legitimacy of the electoral process. Supporters of both major parties want to see their opponents prosecuted. This is not normal in a mature democracy. As Marche points out, “America already fits the definition of civil strife. Political violence is already quite normal. The question isn’t if a civil war is going to happen: the question is if it’s already happening.”
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAs an American, a veteran, and one who works with the federal government on a daily basis, the DoD in particular, I think an actual Civil War is a real possibility.
I could see CA try to secede if Trump is elected.
But I could also see some southern and midwestern states try were Trump to lose under questionable circumstances and were the democrats to take aggressive actions to quell protests or aggressively push a progressive agenda and try to shove it down the throats of middle America.
But, I think before we see guns we will see a lot more self sorting. More democrats and progressives from red states move to blue states like NY while more conservatives move out of places like CA or NY to Texas and Florida.
And, I am not so sure that the the federal government could count on the military, for a few reasons.
First, the commanders might object to being asked to attack US citizens on US soil. At the very least they would hesitate.
Second, the military itself is kinda divided. I am not so sure that even were the generals to issue orders that they could count on unconditional support of the troops and for that reason the generals might hesitate further. Then, you have to consider what the national guard and military reservists would do. I got a strong feeling that the more liberal members of the military would simply go AWOL and the more conservative would either refuse to fight or would side with whichever side the democrats were not on. I think National Guard and Reservist units would side with their state.
Then too, you have to consider where the bases are. Most of the big military bases for the army and the air force are located in places like Texas, North Carolina, Georgia, Nebraska, Ohio, Utah, and Alabama. Sure, states like NY and MA have bases but they are small and there is not a lot of “fighting” equipment there. CA has Navy bases and some training bases for the army etc, but apart from San Diego, the vast majority of those are closer to Arizona than LA.
What is more likely is that the huge numbers of paramilitary forces the fed have would be used and would respond.
The blue states are also more vulnerable than the red states. CA could be brought to its knees in a few days by cutting off its water. The North East could be cut off from food and energy pretty quickly.
The other thing to consider is that there is that the country as such is not Blue and Red states. It is really large, deep blue, cities surrounded by red counties. Cities are vulnerable and dependent. Food, water, electricity, medicine, all has to be brought in from outside. I could see a situation where say a city like Chicago could find itself cut off by surrounding red counties. Even CA. Northern and eastern CA are NOT LA or San Francisco. I could see the deep blue cites being brought to their knees by a confederacy of rural areas simply cutting them off from what they need.
I see a working class and rural sort of alliance facing off against a laptop class urban elite. Of the two, I can guess who is tougher, more adaptable, more self reliant and probably has military experience and knows how to use guns. Its not the wife of the investment banker in the Hamptons or the HR executive for a tech firm in Silicon Valley if you catch my drift.
Great points. Esp WRT army bases and besieged cities.
“I could see a situation where say a city like Chicago could find itself cut off by surrounding red counties.”
Great post. Another issue facing blue cities is their own lawlessness biting them back. I predict that the gangs would take over Chicago soon after any conflict broke out. In other words, it wouldn’t just be the cities against the red outliers. It would be a small fraction of the cities against largely their own residents and THEN the outliers. Ditto for L.A., Philadelphia, etc. Red America would have less of this infighting, especially since the dissenting neocons like Cheney would have already defected to team blue.
I have to agree and I did think of that. The minute law and order broke down during a conflict, there are lots and lots of people who would look to take advantage and I think it would be a much bigger issue in large urban settings.
Could it, would it, be an issue in the redder suburbs and rural counties? Sure. But my suspicion is that it would get put down hard and very quickly. You are far more likely I think to see a large group of citizens in a small town band together with the cops to literally take out trouble makers. I can see a small repair shop owner and a restaurant owner banding together and flat out shooting any looters or rioters. I just do not see the artist or the banker or the TV producer in an urban setting either having the tools or the will to take on a large group of violent thieves. More likely they hunker down in their apartments, turn off the lights and lock the doors.
There is an Indian saying ” What could be stopped by 300 in the morning could not be stopped by 3000 in afternoon “.
But the laptop class go to the gym everyday, play paintball and the women do boxing classes, surely that would give the rural alliance something to worry about.
Surely those are the kind of people that scare you. Surely.
This is the best analysis I’ve seen. I was hoping to hear from someone with actual military experience, if for no other reason to confirm my own thoughts on the matter regarding the national guard, army, and reserves. I’d also like to ask your opinion on another matter.
How likely is an actual military takeover. Say as a result of a series of colossally bad decisions on the part of state and federal authorities, the President ordered the military deployed on US soil. This has not happened since the Civil War, and definitely not since America has had a modern standing army. I’ve always felt this would be a ‘crossing the Rubicon’ moment, that whatever happened after, whatever the ultimate result, that it would essentially be the end of the American Republic and the beginning of, well, something else.
Would the generals actually agree to participate in an internal conflict? Would some of them defect as Lee, Jackson, and several others did the first time? Would they take another route entirely, one that’s fairly common historically and globally but unprecedented here. Might they, instead of following the order to commence an attack, they would take over DC and place the country under martial law, then try to have some kind of new Constitutional Convention or negotiation to resolve the dispute? Basically, a coups followed by a kind of soft reset to resolve the conflict and restructure the national government in a way that relieves some of the internal conflict. I have no faith in our politicians or public institutions, but I retain some respect for our fighting men and women and those who command them. I honestly think if the worst happened, that might be the least violent and least costly option. For better or worse, the military is the one institution most Americans still have some faith in.
Great comment, thanks Daniel.
Your point about blue cities surrounded by red counties is true in the Pacific NW. You don’t have to travel far at all from Seattle or Portland to find yourself in much more conservative areas of WA and OR, which also have control of hydropower, food, and water.
The president can’t use the The military to declare war or kill American civilians. It’s in the Constitution.
Certainly the Joint Chiefs would be explaining ‘posse comitatus to the government, though President Trump was able to use the Washington DC National Guard and those of 11 (?) other states on the streets of Washington, without invoking the Insurrection Act.
Add to this that over 90% of infantry vote Republican and over 65% of their officers do as well. The numbers are probably the same for police. Democrats would like lose a shooting civil war.
An interesting article, especially the author’s concluding question:
“The question isn’t if a civil war is going to happen: the question is if it’s already happening.”
For what it’s worth, I doubt a full-scale civil war is likely or possible, for the reasons the author mentions in his article. Assuming the US military remained loyal to the federal government (and that can’t be entirely taken for granted), armed citizens would be no match for our highly professional military. Of course, people could adopt guerilla tactics as America’s enemies have done, quite successfully, in the Middle East. But what would be their goal and how much could they realistically achieve short of a full victory?
The possibility of secession of some states from the union is also a possibility, but, so far as I’m aware, there is no clear mechanism for that possibility and the federal government would strongly resist at every turn. The practical challenges facing a seceded state would also be enormous.
The likeliest possibility, imo, is a gradual dissolution of the union through failure to comply with federal law and regulation. We’ve already seen, for example, how blue states simply ignore federal immigration law.
Is a civil war already underway? I suppose if you play with the definition of “civil war” the answer might be yes. I would take the less alarmist view and simply say that the slow process of division with the US continues with endless legal battles and an increasing chance of political violence, at least on a small scale. If the US experiment fails, it will likely do so through gradual rot over decades, not in a monumental year of civil war.
The armed citizens of Vietnam and Afghanistan more than matched your military friend. They sent it packing…
In both cases the American state lost the will to fight. You can win every battle, but still lose a war.
I’m curious as to how anyone concludes that a rebellion in the US would quickly and easily put down due to the effectiveness of the US military given the same military’s failure to resolve civil conflicts anywhere else.
Yes, obviously the militia groups are badly overmatched in terms of firepower, training, and military hardware. Were the Taliban and ISIS not similarly outmatched by the American military? Why is it a given that Americans would fare worse than Afghans, Iraqis, or anybody else? Wouldn’t a rebellion represent an opportunity to every one of America’s global enemies, including China and Russia, who could easily supply rebels with weapons through the channels used by the drug trade and the porous southern border, sustaining the conflict in the same manner the US is pursuing the war in Ukraine. Putin would probably be chomping at the bit to give America a taste of its own medicine. Who’s to say other countries wouldn’t support the rebels as a bid to destroy the old order?
American rebels are likely to use the same tactics that are used elsewhere, hitting a target then blending back into the local population. The problem with all civil conflicts is telling the civilians from the fighters. Asymmetric warfare is extremely effective even against advanced armies. For reference see the use of cheap drones in the Ukraine conflict. Moreover, fighting American rebels won’t be any easier to sustain political support for than fighting Iraqis or Afghans. It will be harder because the dead will be Americans who look like any one of us. This is bad enough, but this isn’t even the biggest problem with dismissing rebellion as a possibility.
Someone who rights a book about a possible American civil war should, at minimum, understand how the US military is organized and what its actual size is. The standing army is a fraction of the size it was during the Cold War. In 2022, the standing army was only about 475,000 soldiers. The marines are an additional 175,000. Much of the manpower to fight an actual war would have to come from the national guard units and reservists, 325,000 and 174,000 respectively. The national guard’s loyalty cannot be assumed. They can be called up by the military or the governor of their state. If both made the call to fight, it would be up to individual soldiers to decide their loyalties or to drop out entirely. How many of the actual soldiers would be willing to kill Americans. It certainly isn’t what most of them signed up for? Would some of them defect to the other side as well? What about the officers. It would be a chaotic and unprecedented situation that nobody was remotely prepared for. It is no great leap of logic to imagine a greatly diminished US army facing crises of leadership and morale pitted against a smaller and less well equipped force composed and led chiefly by former military commanders. Granted, the US military would enjoy complete air and naval superiority, as they did in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Moreover, all this assumes the military leadership would actually follow orders to commence an attack on a domestic foe. They might decide it would be better for all concerned to take over the government, declare martial law, and run the country as a military coalition while devolving all federal functions save defense down to the individual states, or call a new Constitutional Convention, or some other solution that doesn’t involve American jets bombing American cities. Saying a rebellion can’t happen or succeed because one side has a military advantage is like saying a man wearing body armor is invincible. This is a rubbish argument and I’ve no idea where it came from, but it needs to stop, because war is serious business, and it’s something we should be working to avoid, not dismissing as irrelevant.
I gotta agree. The federal government, whether under a democrat or a republican administration, simply cannot know for sure that the military will respond or even that it CAN respond.
The military is made up of people. Those people are probably more conservative than the average American but there are plenty of very liberal people in it as well. I’m not sure you could count on military units actually being able to function or function reliably in those circumstances.
I could see AWOL troops.
I could see sabotage by troops sympathetic to either side.
I could see whole units just up and pick the other side. Certainly the national guard and reservist units in the various states would be a challenge.
NEVER MIND that the entire military is dependent on civilian contractors to move fuel, ammo, food or to repair and prepare equipment and the whole system is reliant on the ability to freely transport those things and troops across the country. All it would take is to take out rail heads or blow up some bridges or fly drones at transport aircraft and the whole system breaks down. If helicopters at Bowling AFB cannot get fuel or troops at Ft. Benning cannot get fuel and food or parts for their equipment…..well….they are useless.
Low level insurrection requires the active and passive support of local civilians. Doubt you’d get that enough in American states.
You’re correct. As of right now, there wouldn’t be. That’s a better argument than the author or the person he is quoting makes, but we’re speaking in hypotheticals and speculating about future events. The US is, according to many experts, already in the early stages of civil conflict. It could escalate given the right conditions, but it could also be resolved, slowly dissipate on its own, or simply remain at a low level.
Conflict escalation usually occurs when the actions of one side or both are perceived as provocations. Provoking people makes them angry and the angrier people get, the less rational they are. In the American Revolution, The colonists didn’t just decide to go to war for no reason. They responded to perceived provocations, a series of taxes Britain was using to pay for its wars in Europe and elsewhere. They first appealed to Parliament and the Crown but were refused and punished with more taxes. Eventually they decided they’d had enough and decided to rebel. Unlike most rebellions, that one actually succeeded. This actually works as a kind of historical survivor bias and makes Americans more likely to contemplate rebellion as a solution to political problems. The Civil War was an unsuccessful rebellion, but it is perceived these days as being a moral conflict over slavery, not as a revolution or rebellion.
Any modern civil war would have to be preceded by some very severe provocations in the form of laws that were broadly opposed, specific acts of punishment by the federal government, or direct state/federal confrontations. It would probably require one party or the other to achieve a super-majority and keep it so that they could pass laws that were strongly opposed by some states. A super-majority is very rare though and difficult to get to.
Texas just passed a law that allows state cops to arrest and deport illegal aliens. This has zero chance of standing up in court. It will get struck down at some point. Texas can then either abide by the ruling, or they could choose to escalate, and continue to arrest illegals, perhaps using phony crimes and bogus charges or some other means. Then the federal government might either look the other way or they might choose to escalate and send in the national guard to arrest Texas’s cops and maybe the governor and whoever else. Then Texas could again either back down or choose to escalate and hold a secession referendum.
A civil war would require many bad choices by both sides, but that doesn’t mean it can’t happen. We’re not there yet, but we’re at the point that its not hard to think of a believable series of events that could lead us to that point. It probably won’t happen. I hope it doesn’t, but it can, and that shouldn’t be taken lightly.
Maybe not in blue cities, but don’t be so sure about the counties surrounding them.
And as others note, don’t count on National Guardsmen to obey in lockstep, if it literally pits them against their kin.
With AI weapons human decisions don’t matter. It only matters who has the terminators control codes.
Gruella warfare has only been tried in non-technological areas. In addition, America has shown restraint in opposing it. Rome made a desert and called it peace. America has been too squeamish. The use of slave collars would have tamed Irak and Afghanistan. An explosive collar enables satellite and AI control and monitoring of all the people all the time. If they get out of line, their head blows off.
If California did secede, I don’t think it would be able to assemble much of an army.
I can’t see the majority of Americans wanting them back
Unlike the Civil War, we aren’t divided as much regionally anymore. More or less – big cities are blue, everywhere else is red. Traditional battle lines I would think would be more or less impossible.
This assumes that the conflict would play out pitched battles, where the professional and fully-equipped national forces would indeed win.
But what if the conflict takes the form a long-enduring insurgency or terrorism? The conflict in Northern Ireland, for example, dragged on for years and years. The formal superior numbers, organisation, and equipment of the British security forces never came into play in pitched battles.
Firearms are so widely distributed among US citizens that an IRA-type conflict could go on horribly for a long, long time.
This is a fantasy, just like accusations that Trump would install a dictatorship. For people who push these narratives, please list a set of steps that would happen to make either occur. If California wants to secede, I assume there is a set of constitutional rules it would need follow. If that’s the case, goodbye and good luck.
The Supreme Court had ruled secession illegal.
Didn’t knows that.
The weakness of that in practical terms is, that if a section of a country does secede, it no longer heeds the laws and rulings of the country from which it seceded.
In fact, it seceded precisely in order to achieve that outcome.
Of course. I’m just saying there’s not a constitutional process.
Yes, I assumed that that was you were saying.
I was simply adding a practical observation to the legal point.
It’s a narrative used to depict the progressive left as the oppressed rather than the oppressor. As if the progressive left would lead a secession movement from the biggest economy in the world when they already dominate its public administration, legal system, big business and universities, and control most of its largest cities.
It could not occur legally, for whatever that’s worth. The Civil War established that there was no constitutional means of succession. That doesn’t mean one couldn’t be added by amendment if it were expedient to do so and deemed better than the alternative, which it almost certainly would be. If a state did vote to secede, it’s not a given that the government or the military would conclude that war should be pursued. Many in the north did not want to fight the first civil war. It also can’t be assumed that the military would even follow orders to attack Americans. It would be a problem that goes beyond law or the constitution. It would have to be resolved either through diplomatic negotiations to pursue a fair and peaceful split, some sort of compromise solution that granted states far more autonomy, or a prolonged civil war.
> America has already seen an alarming rise in militia groups, but these rebels would never have the power to resist federal troops.
Have you heard of something called Al Qaeda? They did a decent job of resisting American troops.
Or the Taliban, or ISIS. I have no idea how anyone draws such a conclusion. Unless that quote was taken way out of context, I can’t see how he should be writing on any military topic.
He also seems to be ignoring the decline in numbers and standards of the US troops
An army of woke blue haired trannys won’t be much use
” . . won’t be much use”
That also holds true when your talking about a 35 year old vïrgïñ living in your mums basement . . . such as yourself.
There’s a difference. They were resisting an occupation by a foreign nation. There would be tremendous popular support for this. In the US, support would be divided
True, but on the other hand, it cuts both ways. The support for the secessionist states would be divided but so would popular support for the attackers. One of the problems Lincoln had to overcome in the first Civil War was that there was a significant faction of northerners who also believed in states rights and didn’t believe it was worth fighting to free people they considered inferior and not worth the blood of white Americans. For that matter, many Americans were opposed to the revolution in 1776. In American, they were referred to as Tories. The fact that this is the same name as one of the UK political parties often causes confusion. I’m sure there were people in the UK who didn’t care to fight a war against the colonies then either. I’ve heard arguments from historians that it was one of the reasons so many of the British soldiers in that conflict were actually hired Hessian mercenaries. Who could say which side would be more affected by this divided loyalty. It would probably depend on the reason for the conflict and the relative popularity of the national government in that area.
Well let’s hope it’s an improvement on last time, when Helmuth von Moltke no less, described it as “two armed mobs chasing each across the countryside, from which nothing may be learnt”.
No, it would probably be pretty much the same thing, with improvised weapons, drones, terrorism, IED’s, and all those nice things we’ve invented in the intervening century and a half. Rebels hiding in barns, caves, holes in the ground, and whatever could be set up quickly and easily hidden, popping out to wreak havoc then disappearing again. The US was the first nation to implement guerilla tactics before they were even called such. All the bombers and aircraft carriers would mean very little because the politicians would be just as terrified of using them as they are by the pictures coming out of Gaza.
Oh and every nation that considered America an enemy for the past half century would probably immediately seize on the opportunity to support the rebels in the same fashion we’re supporting Ukraine, sending them weapons, missiles, and supplies through the already existing channels helpfully supplied by the drug smugglers and human traffickers operating on our porous southern border.
Great points Steve.
Estimated NRA membership is around 3 million. For what that’s worth.
In addition to the proposed militia vs federal army scenario, there would be many and varied Leftist militias – as well as the cliched libertarian Right outfits suggested in the movie.
I imagine there would be chaos – would the national guard be expected to engage with pro government aligned Leftist or ethnocentric militias? Asymmetrical and multi fronted chaos.
Like Catalonia on steriods
Ironically, as a Yank I would say that von Moltke and a lot of other Europeans didn’t learn some important lessons from our Civil War, much to the grief of their descendants in WW1. Take a look at the campaigns of 1864, or the Petersburg/Richmond siege. Sending waves of infantry against well-entrenched defenders was a recipe for slaughter, which was repeated ad nauseum on the Western Front.
Question in a civil war is always the same.
‘What will the army do?’
20 years ago, would Nat guard or regular army fire on fellow statesmen? Fellow conservative patriots, fellow GOP voter. Fellow Christian American?
Or would they flip sides – to challenge the illegitimate state as constitutional legends allows, encourages.
We all can imagine why the Dems have been pushing wokism, DEI and Leftist ideas onto the army. For that very reason.
To change soldiers allegiances to break the the bond between soldier and fellow citizen patriot.
So the army becomes an instrument of the Left, NOT the.Right.
With extremists on the left and right using up most of the bandwidth, it’s not surprising such a film would appear in 2024. And the fact that they get so much airtime, internet space, etc., makes it seem like there is a genuine groundswell of unrest.
Thankfully, despite all the media hype, the overwhelming majority of Americans (99%+) are simply folks trying to find their way through life while looking after the people they care about.
Americans used to trust their news sources. Polls today show that trust is almost nil. They feel the same way about their elected officials.
Consequently, no one is likely to believe anyone declaring it’s time for war, especially if such a call to action comes from the chattering classes who always think they know best.
We’re all being manipulated into thinking those who disagree with us are not just wrong-headed, but evil.
It’s entirely possible someone, somewhere, may undertake to start a civil war through terrorism or inciting riots. It’s impossible to imagine he/she will collect more than a handful of followers to conduct such a war.
Make no mistake, there is a crisis of confidence in many homes across America this holiday season. And, the people we trust to know better don’t when it comes to addressing those concerns. Meanwhile, the oligarchs who control much of our information sources continue to profit from all the anxiety and confusion.
Americans have faults, but they are–at heart–good people who try to do what’s right by each other. I would count on that fundamental goodness to carry us through to better times. Like most crises we’ve faced as a nation, it has to get worse before it gets better.
But, it will get better.
Americans are good, but the reason they are far less effective than the Taliban at resistance is that we are not fanatical killers. An armed resistance is a joke.
We are being lulled to sleep by corrupt corporations and a compliant media, so that even as lies become truth and absurdity becomes normal, we don’t resist. We have too much at stake.
The battle ground are media companies. The coup has already happened and the media war is on. We have to fight for truth.
It is far more likely that there will be a civil war in France before there is one in America.
James Burke’s book ” Connections ” explains how fragile is the modern world.
The BBC series based the release of a disease showed well how modern civilisation would collapse.
Survivors – Season 1 – Episode 1 – The Fourth Horseman (youtube.com)
Is this talk of a civil war in the USA emotionally immature,irresponsible and creating a heightened state of emotions which is only likely to make it more likely to occur? as Orwell said “Left wing intellectuals play with fire and they do not know it is hot “.
In 2016 the voting was pictured geographically as ‘Trumpland’ vs ‘The Clinton Archipelago’, with islands of Democrat voters dotted in a sea of Republican voters. One look at this suggests the difficulty of an actual secession of states.
Exactly the sort of thing Putin, Xi, Khamenei and Kim Wrong-Un delighted to see. In fact highly likely the first two working hard in background to stoke this sort of cyber-space bedroom psycho-drama.
Editor, Moderators: why has my post of yesterday evening (perfectly reasonable in tine, moderate in expression, and relevant to the discussion – and in fact making a point quite similar to other posters) disappeared?
What’s the point of a forum for the exchange of ideas if the ideas never see the light of day?
It has now appeared. Thank you.
There’s a much more realistic scenerio in a movie called “Bushwick” (2017).
A united front of milita groups from Texas makes the big leap of attacking Brooklyn with airborne troops. NYC, including Brooklyn, has almost no military presense; a few dozen combat helicopters and a couple of captured airports would be enough to wrong-foot the US forces. With luck, the attackers would capture the city before the defenders had their morning coffee.
It’s a small indie film, focusing on a few characters in the Bushwick neighborhood and the tatty sort of defense they manage to mount. Communications are down, confusion reigns.The narrow focus allows the film makers to avoid any grand plot devices; no Superman shows up to rescue us. Very well done and worth a look. It’s free online.
Afterwards, I remember thinking that if, in real life, a few sizable units of the US military jumped to the rebel side we’d have a real civil war.
“these rebels would never have the power to resist federal troops”
You seriously underestimate the power of redneck ingenuity.
And no, it’s not like an NBA team vs. the local YMCA team, it’s more like an NBA team vs. ALL of the YMCA teams at once.
As the author says, if the American military — even in its present state, being degraded by ‘woke’ policies — remains intact, than a ‘civil war’ between it and rightwing ‘militias’ would be over in three days, and two of those days would be filling body bags with militia members.
As Trotsky said, in a civil war, the struggle — for the revolutionaries — must not be with the army but for the army.
There are too many blue cities in red states Austin and red rural areas in blue states to geographically divide the country. Any civil war will be a guerrilla insurgency if the fight is against a blue federal government. The most important question is what will the volunteer army do? It is mainly requited from rural areas and tends to be anti-woke. Especially in the Marines and combat troops. The exceptions are inner city blacks who also fill the ranks. The army has never succumbed to the idea of military rule but woke Democrats could change this.
In a civil war, one must consider AI and drones. Even if American troops would refuse to fire on the American people, an AI would. The only question would be who had the terminator’s command codes. If it’s a woke president, even nuclear weapons might be used on red states. The reverse if a red president has the codes.