That would make a lot of sense given America isn’t populating enough to replace people sans immigration. I’d imagine it’s less of an America thing and more of an ‘affluent’ thing, to which white people would tend to dominate
Something like what’s written in Thomas Chittum’s Civil War II: The Coming Breakup of America.
Ah. So racially driven. Probably one of the more likely scenarios IRT the reasons for a civil war imo. Still rounds down to zero in my head, but definitely a higher likelihood than many of the other theories I’ve seen.
You read the book too?
I don’t know what the acronym IRT means. What does it stand for?
Too bad there are no PM’s anymore.
Nope lol, but I googled the synopsis and a couple blurbs that said it was the authors words.
Personally I think if a civil war were to happen, it’d be classist in nature. Imo race as we recognize it won’t even exist in 50-100 years. The intermingling has been watering it down for generations.
Irt = in regards to
I keep waiting for them to come back. Needs me some juice sources. This dad bod is hanging on for dear life
I think you’re focusing on the wrong tweet…
Ha. You funny. Cardio.
Side note. Now that Michigan has legal rec I’m fully planning on transitioning to mostly edibles soon. I wouldn’t mind being able to jog around the block without wanting to die
Yeah… I think I missed something
The rep (Swalwell) basically said, if we go to war (civilian vs. gov) it’d be a short war because we (gov) has nukes. In other words, the government would nuke it’s own land/citizens.
Pretty nuts for like 50 reasons.
I don’t think a civil war would be racially driven, but regionally. Regardless, there would be at least 100,000,000 dead Americans probably more. Massive starvation in urban centers, and everyone dependent on some form of medication, or medical treatments: cancer patients, dialysis patients, diabetics, people with high blood pressure, all dead. And slow miserable deaths at that.
It blows my mind to hear people casually talk about tearing down the system so we can start over.
I took it to mean ‘your pea shooters wont touch real weaponry, and even if it did we have an everybody loses button.’ it’s called mutually assured destruction for a reason.
But fair point. It’s silly to even say
Imo the rest of the world would be more than happy to use the ensuing chaos to put American down like a rabid dog. It’d be too scary to them if the ‘wrong side’ won.
And most people (nearly all) would probably immediately fall in line to the new leader, assuming we get to live en masse. Essentially no living Americans have ever had to sacrifice to the extent they would in a true civil war. They’d be clawing back immediately.
The people in charge, or those who would like to be in charge probably think they could get us all back in line pretty quickly, but once the wheels fall off the bus, it’s a lot harder to get them back on than most people think.
I don’t think the rest of the world hates and fears us as much as you think. Europe definitely loves us more than they say and fear Russia more than they let on. Japan, South Korea, the Philipeans, India, hell pretty much everyone in Asia except China like us more than they do China. But as we saw in 2008, chaos in the US means chaos around the world. They would have their own problems to sort out.
I don’t take the subject lightly.
In today’s nanny surveillance state, what do you imagine to be the rough size of said rebellion if it were to occur? Is it a coordinated effort? If so, how in god’s name did it get anywhere near that big without the reigning power completely stepping on it?
Not trolling btw, I like these types of thought experiments. I’ve spent hours upon hours debating the best way to handle a zombie apocalypse.
I don’t think it has anything to do with hating or fearing ‘us’ perse. I think it would be the very rational fear of the unknown.
Think about it. What options does any UN/NATO ally have? If you support the rebellion, you’re now a direct nuclear target. You’re destabilizing and throwing uncertainty into the world’s largest economy and military, by a country mile. You can’t sit out either. You have treaties with these people. And they have bases in your back yard.
That was economic crisis, not ideological. But I take your point.
Here’s a scenario - extrapolate current divisive trends in US politics for the next 8-12 years. Add climate change effects, terror attacks and and an economic crisis and in the November of 2028 the losing populist (think uber Trump from the right or a malevolent Cortes from the left) refuses to concede and invites his/hers supporters to “take up arms and defend the Constitution/seize the power for the people”
I doubt there could be much of a rebellion from small groups, it would be more like entire states and groups of states leaving, seceding, accompanied by a massive mutiny by the military. The quote up thread by the representative, which I hadn’t heard before seeing it in this thread is hilarious. I predict a 99% chance that if one of our “leaders” ordered someone in our military to nuke an American city, they would immediately shoot said leader in the face before they carried out such an order.
Nothing that’s not bureaucratic talk. But from my understanding from discussions with people who’ve actually participated in such trainings/exercises, it’s all about blurring lines so that there’s no compelling clear-cut event that could initiate a conventional military response.
I know that one NATO exercise involved a scenario where a bunch of non-violent students block a strategic highway/transport hub with lofty yet very vague goals that simply cannot be met. Optics for even a law enforcement involvement are pretty bad, and in due time economic costs pile up and the protest starts drawing in extreme left or extreme right wing militants. So the situation slowly escalates, the public opinion is suffering from protest fatigue due to non-stop media coverage and suddenly LEOs are faced with armed, masked men taking potshots at government troops in what is still perceived as a student protest.
Things escalate from there, populists jump on the bandwagon, you have bloodshed, some kids from the initial protest get killed and suddenly your urban centers are paralyzed with protesters while the government is losing the media narrative war. Chaos ensues - violent riots, lootings, citizens form opposing paramilitary groups and the ruling elite is extremely hesitant to come out in full force lest they be accused of tyranny.
In such a scenario you don’t have a compelling event to roll out tanks, not to mention advanced weaponry.
That’s why China overreacts to every kind of protest - they’re aware there’s a plausible path to chaos.
Alright, I’m game. What does that look like? For that to happen, you’re immediately narrowing it to the right rebelling (they’ve got the guns, let’s be honest, Libs don’t have the stomach). And what does that type of justice actually look like? Mobs in the street hanging Democrats? Assassinations coming from every angle?
As soon as it gains even the smallest amount of traction, it becomes the reason your society is falling apart to the hundreds of millions that didn’t feel like it was time to take up arms. Which leads to the demonization of this underdog, and their inevitable fall.
How would that shake out? What meaningful state has anywhere near enough support in any divide topic to actually secede? You’re talking about millions of people actively and openly wrecking the lives of everyone in the state. When have Americans TRULY sacrificed in any of our lifetimes en masse? You’re talking about unprecedented modern day sacrifice from the common man.
Agreed. And I think 99% is a very conservative number.
How does this even occur? A literal blockage? Like they’re standing in the street and won’t move blockage?
It’s by the NATO definition of hybrid war - when the events dictated either internally or externally do not provide you with a clear and compelling reason to use military force under meaningful rules of engagement.
Yes, a literal blockage. Blocking something important that incurs economic costs and cannot be ignored like Occupy Wall Street.
Something like this, unfolding in France as we speak:
So wouldn’t it just be not ignored? To my knowledge, literally blocking a street, even non violently, isn’t legal. The powers that be would be fully within their power to justifiably disperse the crowd.
Bad optics aside, if they’re presenting a problem you can’t ignore, you simply remove them. Then you’re back to how much are that many people willing to sacrifice (felonies with no chances of real jobs one day) to achieve a goal as farfetched a long term inner destruction with no winners.
This seems to be missing one of the linchpin criteria
Plus, 14 seriously injured in total out of ~288,000 people taking part. That’s just silly. I’ve seen worse numbers in Cleveland after the Cavs lose a big game.