Yes, the events in France are very, very far from the hypothetical scenario elaborated above, but the French government still hasn’t used force to disperse the protests, despite massive economic costs and one fatality. Why? Bad optics.
So it’s not a given that a group blocking some crucial infrastructure would simply be “removed” by force.
I would assume it’s because they’re debating on to what extent they’re going to meet the demands and end peacefully. Stuff like this already in the works, probably more to come.
The government has announced a number of measures to help poorer families pay their energy and transport bills.
If there aren’t any achievable goals, like in the NATO example, there’s no positive to letting them continue. Your options are bad optics now or kinda bad optics for a while and bad optics after that.
In America? Where probably a quarter of those protesters are armed with firearms? You’d even DEFINITELY have an armed counter protest as well. What choice would the govt have? What cause does letting them sit there further?
Also, American students are generally pussies. Start tossing in tear gas and they’ll scatter, same as most other groups.
But you’re still left the with inevitable problem of demands that cannot be met, right? So regardless of the PR problem, its an inevitability. Stalling it only proves to rip the bandaid off slower. The bandaid still has to come off.
Edit: I guess now that I think about it, you could make your goals ‘achievable’ but make it a total non starter topic for the current party in power. Ala ‘gun regs’ if GOP is in power, ‘gay marriage’ for Dems (just examples).
The hypotheticals are fun and all but put me firmly in the camp of never going to happen. You need energized citizens who are incredibly pissed to have a civil war. We are so fat and happy as a nation. High speed Internet, pizza delivery, porn. We don’t even fistfight anymore we passively aggressively tweet.
Most Americans won’t vote or workout. We think they are going to take up arms and fight each other in mass numbers? Lmao. The only shooting we do in mass amounts is on Fortnite and Call of Duty.
I’m surrounded by plenty of “they can take my guns from my cold dead hands” types. Most of them are lazy fat bastards (generalizing sucks I know). They aren’t going to war. The hardass talk would shut down real quick once real soldiers show up.
I’d imagine anyone receiving such an order would be plenty vetted to assure otherwise. If States or large groups of people are leaving, they’ll just be portrayed as a threat to everyone that’s remaining loyal. The United States let about 2% of its combined current(at the time) and former populations die back in the 1860s.
Edit: I don’t know a whole lot about how widespread damage from a nuclear bomb would be, so I’ll say that it’s certainly possible people would refuse to carry out such an order for fear of harming themselves.
MAD stands for mutually assured destruction, and its the big reason a nuke hasnt been detonated in anger since the 40s. It will never be just one nuke. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 20 kiloton yeild. Average warhead today is around 250kt yeild. Each missile launched has multiple independently targeted warheads. It’s game over for anywhere with a population or military or industrial importance.
I agree with you, but that would mean either the U.S.-leavers have nuclear weapons themselves or are allied with a nation that has them. I think both are likely, in the event a sizable group wishes to peacefully leave the U.S. Government. I think that’s why an order to use nuclear weapons against the group is extremely unlikely.
Edit: I think it’s somewhat-likely-to-probable that citizens of the United States would demand that the former-United States group be left alone and allowed to part; hopefully, their elected officials would do as they wish.
Are nuclear arms owned by the state? Why would a seceding area of America be given nukes as a parting gift?
Assuming they left under bad pretenses (is there another actual reason to secede), why would the United States leave them alone? They’re instantly a bordering area with whom they obviously share very little, and would probably be seen as potential enemies that now share a border
If it helps I don’t think that it will break out into civil war. I think a full scale worldwide societal crisis will hit when the world reaches a leverage tipping point. When governments and private citizens end up in so much debt that the market finally realizes we will never pay it all back… worldwide financial meltdown as citizens of every country lose faith in their first currency.
Society is just 7 meals away from chaos. Now imagine watching your kid starve, to death. Then realize that your neighbor has a loaf of bread. Shit gets real, real quick.
Well, they’d share a common language, and hundreds of years of common history. Their cultures would likely be much more similar than are (most) of the cultures in the United States and Mexico today. The United States and Mexico share a border. The United States and Mexico are not at war.
Assuming they seceded due to a disagreement/conflict with the United States. I can’t imagine another reason to tank the entire area except a large falling out
So how exactly does the scenario play out where they could have nukes themselves? Is it expected that creating nuclear warheads would be possible by a new state with no standing military, and no backed currency?
And they’d (more recently) share a falling out to the scale the world hasn’t seen before?
The US and Mexico are allies with enough peace treaties to drown a library. Why would the US have the same relations with a neighboring state that decided it disliked America enough it left?
England voted to leave the EU a couple of years ago, and is set to do so next year. I guess we’ll see then, unless something changes.
Why are the US and Mexico “allies with enough peace treaties to drown a library?” Why is it that the US and Mexico can coexist, but the US and an even-friendlier country could not? A section of the country could leave because it disagreed with the dictates of the Supreme Court and Federal Government. That would not make it an enemy. It could certainly make its own laws while remaining a close ally of the United States.
There are several groups In the US that frown upon mixing and I’m convinced that mixing doesn’t occur nearly as much as some believe or what mass media portrays.
Several people I know, mostly liberals, have stated that a war would be class based. I believe, but do not know, that people say this to put themselves at ease because that seems more like a just war rather than face the grim idea of a tribal war. They can’t imagine the hostility and violence that others have and still experience in this world Because of group membership, even though such groups are vastly different and want different goals achieved. And does anyone think people who don’t even speak the same languages can team up in such a dangerous situation?
And consider the title of this thread here and how it relates to this subtopic.
My close friends are a mixed bag, as are others’. So perhaps there will be mixed groups in such a situation. I might be passed on when and if such a disaster comes.
My wife and I have joked about encouraging our sons to date Asian and Indian girls because when we’re at the store and school functions seeing the way those kids are parented vs how the average American kid is parented… it’s no contest.