420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
Hypothetical civil war in the USA by Cornelius Billyseg - Tue, 18 Apr 2017 08:11:02 EST ID:NY3ouz89 No.390995 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1492517462012.png -(95093B / 92.86KB, 698x448) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 95093
‘God has given us another chance’: Speakers at pro-Trump rally urge crowd to prepare for a ‘civil war’
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/god-has-given-us-another-chance-speakers-at-pro-trump-rally-urge-crowd-to-prepare-for-a-civil-war/

Is such a thing possible? The cities have the advantage in terms of population and strategic ports and the countryside has the advantage in terms of firearms per person and strategic resources. Something tells me that rural cousin-fucking neo-confederates have a wet dreams about the thought of murdering them fancy trash-talking city liberals.

How would strategic foreign alliances go into play, who would back the rural faction and who would back the urban faction? What does Canada do? What does Mexico do? I think both would side with the cities or be neutral, depending on their stake in and willingness to engage in the conflict . Britain and the neo-confederates always secretly loved each other, by virtue of being traitors to the union. The far east I am unsure.

What about nuclear bombs? Would these be used at all? There are a fair number in or near urban areas and a fair number in the deep south as well as the north east. Would any be crazy enough to use them in a civil war?

How does Hawaii and Alaska factor into it? What about our allies in Asia, which side do they side with?

Which way would the military split? Military recruitment tends to favor the rural faction, but it also tends to favor low-income areas. Most are stationed in Cali and Texas or the south-east. There is also a divide between black/minority recruits and white recruits.

Would it be another conflict as bloody as the first one, considered the bloodiest war in American history? Pic related, it's the 2016 electoral vote per county weighted by population of the county. I think the conflict might be hard on the cities at first but would quickly turn into entrenched warfare due to their huge population and economic advantages, despite having fewer weapons and less training. Let's face it, the far right in rural areas of the country have had a hard-on for civil war for decades now and have been stockpiling guns and preparing to kill liberal city folk for quite some time. On the other hand, the cities could just as easily buy large amounts of weapons from foreign or domestic sources and quickly train hordes of recruits well enough for them to kill somewhat effectively. The end result is a wash, with neither side having a clear chance at victory, just a terrible bloody conflict.

Just a violent daydream.
>>
Soviet Psychonaut - Tue, 18 Apr 2017 08:48:56 EST ID:2TfYxlWB No.390998 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Something tells me that rural cousin-fucking neo-confederates have a wet dreams about the thought of murdering them fancy trash-talking city liberals.

Probably not, but you just summarized why urban areas will lose out to your unsavory cousins in the boondocks. Cities are death traps, and very easy to disrupt.
>>
Cornelius Billyseg - Tue, 18 Apr 2017 09:22:32 EST ID:NY3ouz89 No.391000 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1492521752012.jpg -(251201B / 245.31KB, 640x531) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>390998
I wouldn't be so certain right away. After all, in the previous conflict, the union was more populated, industrialized and metropolitan and they won, albeit at great cost.
>>
Cornelius Billyseg - Tue, 18 Apr 2017 09:24:09 EST ID:NY3ouz89 No.391001 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_in_the_American_Civil_War#New_York_City
>>
Simon Cemblebanks - Tue, 18 Apr 2017 18:56:34 EST ID:FqtcG9EC No.391024 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390995
People are way too politically lazy and spoiled for a civil war.
>>
Cyril Blatherworth - Tue, 18 Apr 2017 19:16:59 EST ID:kMHRWa3R No.391025 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1492557419340.gif -(1558077B / 1.49MB, 271x201) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>391024

Repeat a lie enough times and it becomes the truth.

In reality it's a miracle you guys still "get along" with each other.
>>
Soviet Psychonaut - Tue, 18 Apr 2017 19:25:38 EST ID:2TfYxlWB No.391026 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1492557938570.jpg -(206546B / 201.71KB, 1080x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>391000

That's pretty anachronistic though. How would Manhattan, Staten Island, and Long Island put up with every bridge and tunnel destroyed?

Also, OP, you realize if civil war breaks out in the us, you'd likely see ww3 soon after because not only would foreign actors get involved in ways they couldn't even imagine in 1860, but the world order will crumble as the world's most powerful military is tied up by domestic strife. It's not as cut and dry as the civil war in history books.
>>
Graham Cogglefoot - Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:36:23 EST ID:NY3ouz89 No.391029 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391026
That's assuming that the rural faction could destroy every bridge and tunnel expeditiously. I think we're assuming a lot of power on the part of the rural faction that just might not be there. There's a good fifty miles of urban sprawl in every direction.

Sure, cities can be vulnerable, but they also have more police and often host their own military bases. If we're assuming that each base in the municipality goes to the municipal factions, then I think it'd be a lot more difficult to take the cities than you're assuming.

You're right about WW3 occurring, though.
>>
Graham Cogglefoot - Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:47:27 EST ID:NY3ouz89 No.391031 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391029
There's another corollary to the argument. Certain strategic resources (certain food and water sources) could be restricted by the rural faction, but the same applies to most trade and shipping resources, since virtually every port in the country is densely populated, the one exception maybe the port of Houston.

Los Angeles and San Diego would be a huge boon to the municipal faction given the strategic oil and military facilities in place there.

I think it all depends on how it pans out. If it would start with secession, then likely it would be an entire states resources going to one faction or another. If it starts with insurgency, then likely the insurgents (of either kind) would have a strong disadvantage.

nb
>>
Shitting Bronderfield - Tue, 18 Apr 2017 21:38:53 EST ID:0B9qh6RW No.391032 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1492565933170.gif -(2953082B / 2.82MB, 600x348) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
A half century out of date, but still relevant, this is what the military wrote up after the riots during the 60s: https://nsarchive.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/garden-plot.pdf

Cartogram of economic activity somewhat related.
>>
Soviet Psychonaut - Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:07:04 EST ID:2TfYxlWB No.391033 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391031

>Certain strategic resources (certain food and water sources) could be restricted by the rural faction

Aha, fuck the bridges, the water source from nyc is way upstate, that'd be easier for the rural areas to fuck with as it comes from the catskills and resevoirs.

Nb
>>
Augustus Wellerwater - Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:09:52 EST ID:8Jh2i/ky No.391050 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391033
Right...
The reaction would be fully autonomous 100' grain harvesting combines and water tankers accompanied by land and air based anti-personnel drones operating like a Nimitz-style carrier group.

Somebody ought to make a tv-show about this right wing fever dream, lol.
>>
Reuben Tootford - Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:07:23 EST ID:Yh0dEBHV No.391054 Ignore Report Quick Reply
What I find interesting is that people assume rural folk will be able to somehow out maneuver the career generals who stay on. Which may be all of them, remember. Face it, the rural areas may provide a tone of grunts for the war machine, but the guys who call the shots went to college to specialize in war. A bunch of factions run mostly by the GED crowd would be a mess without a rare, ultra-charismatic leader. More like roving bandits than an insurgency.
>>
Soviet Psychonaut - Wed, 19 Apr 2017 21:56:27 EST ID:2TfYxlWB No.391065 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1492653387273.jpg -(35327B / 34.50KB, 454x319) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>391050
>fully autonomous 100' grain harvesting combines and water tankers accompanied by land and air based anti-personnel drones operating like a Nimitz-style carrier group

Man thats a hilarious visual

>>391054
I think the assumption the rural folk have is not that theyll outsmart them but that by and large law enforcement and military grunts supporting them. Also what if texas leads the rebellion? Then they'll be able to churn out F16s and aircraft carriers unlike literally every other state.
>>
Archie Wackletock - Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:36:28 EST ID:NY3ouz89 No.391070 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1492695388364.jpg -(54329B / 53.06KB, 700x519) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>391065
Sort of, except the parts to build F16s are manufactured from all over, in fact many coming from a great deal of aerospace companies like Northrop Grumman and Raytheon based in California. Not to mention the fuel reserves needed to supply carriers and planes being located in San Diego and Los Angeles.

Also, the F16 manufacturing may be moved to India soon. No joke.
http://www.voanews.com/a/lockheed-martin-india-and-us-talk-on-proposal-to-build-f-16s-in-india/3728624.html

I think Texas could actually be vulnerable from Mexican incursion in any such chaos.
>>
Archie Wackletock - Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:45:39 EST ID:NY3ouz89 No.391071 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391070
Not to say that Texas does not also have oil. I just don't think manufacturing during a civil war would be as cut and dry. nb
>>
Hamilton Sezzleman - Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:43:33 EST ID:T43ZgZvA No.391072 Ignore Report Quick Reply
For the record; any port city should have an easy enough time trading for resources unless the other side sets up an embargo. Any embargo also risks bringing a foreign navy into the conflict.

The real question is how the USA's military resources would be allocated.
>>
Wesley Biffingfoot - Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:39:38 EST ID:Yh0dEBHV No.391082 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391065
>Also what if texas leads the rebellion?

They got their asses handed to them last time they tried to leave.
Same will happen.

Texas needs to get over themselves. In a big way.
>>
Archie Wackletock - Thu, 20 Apr 2017 13:17:18 EST ID:NY3ouz89 No.391085 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1492708638364.jpg -(51830B / 50.62KB, 460x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>391072
Control of each and every base in http://www.militarybases.us/by-state/ would be a determining factor in victory. There are quite a few in all populated areas and certain bases have certain strategic resources at them. Nellis near Las Vegas where they train USAF for example. IIRC Ft Irwin does army drills throughout the mojave. Not sure how much equipment is stored for training though.
>>
Hamilton Sezzleman - Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:02:06 EST ID:T43ZgZvA No.391087 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1492714926914.jpg -(331608B / 323.84KB, 1480x1201) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>391085
One would have to assume some sort of dissolution in the military. Otherwise whoever has the most of the US military would win outright before a more long-term civil war broke out.

At that point it's all about assets, economy, production capacity and alliances like most wars. Or 12 aircraft carriers become the 12 warlords of the coast; the fuck do I know? I would so watch it whatever it turns out to be though.
>>
Wesley Biffingfoot - Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:24:34 EST ID:Yh0dEBHV No.391092 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391087
I think the military would fracture, with some generals peeling off and some defections. You could also have stark racial splits. I doubt many minorities would sign on to join forces with Independent Pepeistan Kekeke My Memes.
>>
Hamilton Sezzleman - Thu, 20 Apr 2017 19:18:36 EST ID:T43ZgZvA No.391102 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391092
Yeah but they would need stuff like semi-contiguous territory that is at least semi-self-sufficient.
>>
Nigel Greenshit - Thu, 20 Apr 2017 22:03:49 EST ID:gLWQoQ6s No.391111 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1492740229658.jpg -(176262B / 172.13KB, 750x580) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Watch ken burns the civil war on Netflix. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. The loss of American life was greater than WWI, WW2, and Vietnam combined.
>>
Cedric Bardspear - Thu, 20 Apr 2017 22:53:49 EST ID:Yh0dEBHV No.391112 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391102
Therein lies a big rub. The South felt the squeeze hard because all the guns and shit were made in the East. They also never managed to get any allies. Which meant they were fucked for imports unless they had money, and the war came right in the middle of a world cotton glut. Oh, and the CSA decided to embargo France and the UK until they supported them. Which sounds kinda Trumpy...just saying.
>>
Hannah Hacklehall - Sat, 22 Apr 2017 03:45:44 EST ID:i1eo8CqX No.391139 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1492847144566.jpg -(264000B / 257.81KB, 796x582) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>391112
>They also never managed to get any allies.
Honestly I would love to see the South try to rise again just to instantly become a pariah state and regime changed by the UN or NATO. If it ever came down to a fight and the rest of the world had to choose sides between red and blue America, damn near nobody is going to pick Team Redneck. It would be them versus the world.
>>
Martin Brendlewere - Sat, 22 Apr 2017 04:56:29 EST ID:0B9qh6RW No.391140 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1492851389782.jpg -(118228B / 115.46KB, 525x387) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>391139
They'd be comparable to Poland in terms of median income.
Their total GDP, population, military size, government corruption, religious tendencies, political tendencies, and other social/economic aspects would be closer to Russia.
In terms of landmass, they'd be comparable to Saudi Arabia.

While the south is economically dependent on the rest of the country, they control a number of strategic resources for the military and economy, specifically oil/refineries/petroleum industry, nuclear reactors, ports, lumber, food/meat production.
I think they also have a lot of the country's heavy steel-forging capacity.


There's nothing the south produces that we couldn't get from elsewhere in the country/Canada/other countries, but they're things that have very little elasticity of demand that take time to rebuild capacity so we would suffer for it.
It's best for everyone that they don't secede.
>>
Beatrice Snodwill - Sun, 23 Apr 2017 12:28:44 EST ID:Yh0dEBHV No.391185 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391140
Hey, they are the ones talk secession every fucking 5 minutes.

Tired of neo-Confederate derp.
>>
Caroline Blytheham - Sun, 23 Apr 2017 13:14:17 EST ID:8Jh2i/ky No.391186 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391140
This color coded chart makes it look more dramatic than it actually is at the extremes of the range that's 27% to 41% and that doesn't even take into account regional differences in the cost of living.
>>
Wesley Grandfuck - Sun, 23 Apr 2017 22:59:41 EST ID:HN/7szdG No.391194 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391140
You do understand that the South now contains the vast swath of new entries to business and industry. Everyone left the North due to Unions, taxes and strict regulations and just moved South to no Unionization, low taxes and barely any regulations because that thar is socializum.

Hate to break it to you but the South is the new North. Everyone in the Midwest is a heroin addict that is poor and living in shithole festering towns of crime and poverty.

Also, Russia and China would ally with the South so that they could infiltrate the South and the rest of the US. The South would be funneled arms and money by hundreds of backers. Case in point: France sending us tons of resources to fight British occupation.
>>
Charles Bemmlened - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 01:11:34 EST ID:0B9qh6RW No.391195 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1493010694617.png -(127596B / 124.61KB, 948x617) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>391194
>You do understand that the South now contains the vast swath of new entries to business and industry
Can you cite that?
Every metric I can find suggests that while the south's population is growing faster than any other region, currently just above 115M, 26M being in Texas, the region has the lowest median income, the lowest economic activity per capita, and below-average growth.

>Everyone left the North due to Unions, taxes and strict regulations and just moved South to no Unionization, low taxes and barely any regulations because that thar is socializum.
And their terrible education system, lack of funding for infrastructure, and corruption has decreased the productivity of the population, while lower wages, inferior welfare, lack of worker protections all lower demand, hurting economic growth.

>Everyone in the Midwest is a heroin addict that is poor and living in shithole festering towns of crime and poverty.
And they're still wealthier and more productive on average than the south.

>The South would be funneled arms and money by hundreds of backers.
That would be an act of war.
American spends 3.5 times more on the military than China and Russia combined.
That wouldn't be France sending supplies to aid a colonial uprising while they're at war with Great Britain, that would be like independent Ireland funding a colonial uprising when Great Britain is at peace.
>>
Henry Sottinglock - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 06:18:33 EST ID:jyQT3zd9 No.391196 Ignore Report Quick Reply
> Something tells me that rural cousin-fucking neo-confederates have a wet dreams about the thought of murdering them fancy trash-talking city liberals.

Something tells you? It's out in the open. They're waiting for the opportunity. It;s why Obama tried to dismantle the bigger threats by labeling various white rural militia groups "domestic terrorists."

I will side with them in a heartbeat if it happens
>>
Edwin Wummerdale - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 06:36:46 EST ID:sMjBd+5i No.391201 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391194
> I've never left my home state, but allow me to tell you exactly what life is like in every region of this country.
>>
Eliza Sellyfack - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:32:55 EST ID:GGV9cS/v No.391211 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391194
What, did you get those talking points directly from the Alabama Board of Tourism or something? No way in hell is the South the "new North".

>>391196
>I will side with them in a heartbeat if it happens
That's adorable.
>>
Martin Blimblebick - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 13:31:31 EST ID:T43ZgZvA No.391220 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1493055091751.jpg -(147919B / 144.45KB, 729x317) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>391112
>Oh, and the CSA decided to embargo France and the UK until they supported them.
Lol, wtf?
>Which sounds kinda Trumpy...just saying.
yup.

For the record I'd put my money on blue. Cities are the hubs for wealth-generation, industrial production, communication, trade and so forth. Unless rural areas manage to quickly besiege and starve the cities they are basically guaranteed to have a much easier time securing the resources needed for war, at least on the coasts. Secondly rural areas would initially be faced with a ridiculous amount of area to defend while cities are spoiled for avenues of attack.
>>
William Clirrybanks - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 15:18:59 EST ID:Yh0dEBHV No.391229 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391194
>Hate to break it to you but the South is the new North.

Nope. They are the Old South more and more. Every year they get dumber. Fatter. More addicted to meth and oxy, and poorer.

Businesses moved there and those that follow did so out of sheer ignorance. The whole, "The South is so cheap to live in," is bullshit. Wages are lowest in the southern states. You get a job there and while housing may be cheaper, your pay is half that of the North, with more regressive taxes, and while you make 50% less, things like cars, gasoline, food, etc is NOT 50% less. May be somewhat cheaper, but nobody is paying half what a Northern does for a Honda Civic or half the price for a loaf of bread.

The South is one big Corporate Gulag at this point.
>>
William Clirrybanks - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 15:28:17 EST ID:Yh0dEBHV No.391230 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391220
Yeah. France and the UK were where all the cotton was processed and woven. In, what has to be the dumbest fucking strategy since Custer said, "Hey, we should fight those Indians," they figured that by cutting off cotton supplies, France and the UK (both of whom were like, "This is your fucking mess...we don't want any part of it,") would be pressured to support the CSA.

Well, they did this at a time when the cotton market was glutted. The UK and France had other, equally productive colonies they could pull from. Egyptian cotton really saturated the market. So, the CSA had no real card to play. There was so much cotton that from 1861-65 Lancashire was thrown into a deep depression as there was no need for anyone to make new cloth or thread. Storehouses were stacked high and cotton became super cheap.

And in the middle of this, the CSA decided to embargo two Empires in the hope of basically forcing them to recognize the CSA as legit.

Fucking stupid-ass crackers.
>>
Martin Blimblebick - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 19:16:57 EST ID:T43ZgZvA No.391254 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391230
>The UK and France had other, equally productive colonies they could pull from.
Ironically that was probably a stroke of luck for the south. "Not selling us cotton" was generally grounds for large scale atrocities at the time. Hell, some European powers at the time might attack on sheer principle.
>>
Samuel Gebberridge - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 19:32:15 EST ID:KVQJ8U2S No.391255 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1493076735771.jpg -(135324B / 132.15KB, 480x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>391230
>In, what has to be the dumbest fucking strategy since Custer said, "Hey, we should fight those Indians,"
>since
>1861-65
>SINCE
>>
Polly Gumbleson - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 21:01:49 EST ID:/NQbuQW6 No.391256 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391070
carriers dont use oil or fuel, they use nuclear power. They can stay out for like 40 years if need be
>>
Ernest Blatherlock - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 22:14:44 EST ID:sUBj56yv No.391261 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391256
Without oil or fuel all they could do is angerly patrol up and down the coast though.
>>
Albert Himmerdane - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 22:18:44 EST ID:zm6+bc30 No.391262 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391092

Nigga I don't think you know anything about the modern U.S. military. They are conditioned to follow orders, and uphold the united states and its current constitution, "from all enemies foreign and domestic". no sizable military force would break apart from the central command structure of the u.s. military. a small number of individuals may go AWOL, but you sure as shit aren't going to see the military "fracture" or generals "peeling off" lol. if anything the military would just take control. the US military is the most powerful and un-defeatable force in the world, much more than the country itself. it would take unprecedented catastrophe, like the president nuking alabama or something, for there to be even a chance of such a thing
>>
Albert Himmerdane - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 22:20:09 EST ID:zm6+bc30 No.391263 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391256

the planes need fuel lol without planes aircraft carrier is just "big flat boat"
>>
Doris Turveybury - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 22:48:49 EST ID:0B9qh6RW No.391268 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1493088529590.png -(199266B / 194.60KB, 771x601) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>391263
There are places other than the south that have refineries too.
Aircraft carriers are going to have no trouble refueling.

If the south were no longer trading with the rest of the country, the market correction would be painful for both sides, the south lacking oil and markets for their refining capacity, the north having massive markets and oil but limited refining capacity.
>>
Albert Himmerdane - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 23:04:30 EST ID:zm6+bc30 No.391270 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391268

yes i agree with you. i was simply pointing out why AC's need fuel
>>
Hamilton Greenshit - Tue, 25 Apr 2017 03:03:44 EST ID:nxPoknwT No.391292 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391270
wow what an astute observation thanks for the invaluable input you truly know more than the generals
>>
Hugh Smallway - Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:32:27 EST ID:Yh0dEBHV No.391315 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391262
> you sure as shit aren't going to see the military "fracture" or generals "peeling off" lol.

Yeah, because there is no precedent for this happening....
>>
Ernest Blatherlock - Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:51:25 EST ID:sUBj56yv No.391318 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391315
What is the precedent? The Civil War? Military culture has changed a bit from the late 1800s.
>>
Albert Himmerdane - Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:23:06 EST ID:zm6+bc30 No.391321 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391292

why so hostile? i literally said "planes need fuel" and you are implying i think i know more than generals? lol wut?
>>
Hugh Smallway - Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:33:19 EST ID:Yh0dEBHV No.391323 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391318
>Military culture has changed a bit from the late 1800s.

Really? Because, a former general seems to have now been working with Russia... And who knows how a civil war would happen and along what fault lines...that would determine who stays and who leaves/
>>
Reuben Haggleden - Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:59:21 EST ID:QK8mfsjv No.391325 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391323

RUSSIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
Shitting Heblingfork - Tue, 25 Apr 2017 14:38:50 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.391326 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391323

Any soldiers taking a position against the President of the US as the Commander-in-Chief would be committing treason fwiw.
>>
Alice Billinggold - Tue, 25 Apr 2017 14:56:32 EST ID:inR5IBPU No.391331 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1493146592623.png -(995675B / 972.34KB, 960x359) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>391262
>the US military is the most powerful and un-defeatable force in the world

I don't think getting your arses handed to you by peasants and farmers in various second and third world countries counts as "un-defeatable"
>>
Reuben Haggleden - Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:31:00 EST ID:QK8mfsjv No.391333 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391331

inb4 "if we only committed heinous indiscriminate war crimes we would have won easily!"
>>
Priscilla Worthingforth - Tue, 25 Apr 2017 16:03:23 EST ID:GGV9cS/v No.391334 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391262
I don't think service members are the mindless automatons that you seem to think they are. I don't think very many of them would be particularly excited to shoot at fellow Americans. Some will be faced with shooting at friends, family and neighbors. Others will simply be sympathetic to the rebels, either to the ideology behind them or to their general right to self-determination. Some will react along purely partisan or tribal lines. Some will see greater opportunity in the nacent rebel state than under the current status quo. Some, of course, will just want to watch the world burn.

As you say, things have changed since the 1800s. People are better connected and less likely to see someone in another state as a faceless adversary. People are more averse to violence. Military service is seen more and more as just a job, and frankly the pay and between care isn't enough to override many of the considerations listed above. Imperialism is less passé, self-determination is hot. And despite what you think, service members are more skeptical and suspicious of their government than ever before.

Don't be so dismissive of the autonomy individuals in the military have over their own thoughts and actions. It's a little insulting.
>>
Priscilla Worthingforth - Tue, 25 Apr 2017 16:06:39 EST ID:GGV9cS/v No.391335 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391334
>pay and between care
Veteran* care
Fuck you, autocorrect
Nb
>>
David Cleggledock - Tue, 25 Apr 2017 17:27:13 EST ID:EiF/mHBu No.391337 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390995
Civil war starts may first! WE RIOT IN NYC! Wooooooooo! Free acid to everyone I see at the riot! Bringing a whole sheet! Time to fight nazis and the NYPigD!
>>
Phineas Claybanks - Tue, 25 Apr 2017 17:59:04 EST ID:xzKs8o9I No.391338 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1493157544036.jpg -(687953B / 671.83KB, 1600x2503) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
If there is a second American Civil War I see Texas as the South being a real focus in the combat, because of a strong secessionist sentiment. The urban centers of the America are typically liberal so if there is Democratic President they'll likely be little combat if there is a Republican President that could be different.

I think the Northeast and West will be see lesser anti-government activity than the South. However there are pockets of potential resistance in California,Nevada Arizona,Washington and Oregon. Californian resistance will likely be quelled quickly due to the small numbers of likely combatants. The other states will likely have longer lasting resistance.

As for the role of Foreign nations. It depends on how quickly the crisis lasts. If the government can quickly control resistance then there won't any foreign involvement. If the government has difficulty doing this than I could certainly see Canadian troops being called in to assist in the areas near their border;especially if American Rebels cross their border and cause any sort of trouble. Once Canadian troops become involved the chances of other NATO forces becoming involved becomes greater.

If the crisis continues long enough and the US Government loses control and legitimacy then I could see Russia,China and Mexico becoming involved via proxy. Regarding Mexico if the US government can not protect the southern border effectively I could see Narco-terrorists taking great advantage of this situation. If there are any successful secession movements such as Alaska,Texas or Cascadia/California then China or Russia may take these on as client states. I don't see them sending major military forces to assist them though they could send military advisors.

The US military would likely target any resistance cells with Special Operations Forces and Intelligence assets and try to avoid a long drawn out conflict. They would try to eliminate any threat as quickly as possible and there would be a total media blackout. Technology and tactics have changed a lot since the 1860's.

I predict a civil war(s) in the European Union long before there is an actual civil war in the United States.
>>
Hugh Smallway - Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:12:46 EST ID:Yh0dEBHV No.391340 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391326
>Any soldiers taking a position against the President of the US as the Commander-in-Chief would be committing treason fwiw.

And if they have drunk from the Neo-Confederate Kool-Aid, for example, they will think THEY are the ones doing right by "overthrowing tyranny. Woo! Freedumbs!"
>>
korfan - Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:16:05 EST ID:MW1eMnXC No.391342 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391326
fuck trump. fuck him with sometihng hard and sandpapery. i will gladly salute any soldier willing to take up arms against him and his so-called 'administration'. your country is a fucking farce.
>>
Hugh Smallway - Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:17:43 EST ID:Yh0dEBHV No.391343 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391338
>I predict a civil war(s) in the European Union long before there is an actual civil war in the United States.

Ummm...not how the EU works. They aren't the same country, so they can't have a civil war. They are bound by a series of treaties and deals. That is all the EU is.
>>
Hannah Lightfoot - Tue, 25 Apr 2017 21:51:16 EST ID:e7sd8OST No.391347 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1493171476455.jpg -(83548B / 81.59KB, 1280x853) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>391334
The National Guard and other branches of military would simply be deployed to areas they aren't from. Hence avoiding the greater likelihood of defection from being ordered to shoot people they know. Not that I disagree with your post generally, idk.

>>391337
Ride on buddy, but that seems dangerous, be safe out there. Maybe bring a medkit and a solution to treat pepperspray and teargas (50/50 water and Maalox, or similar liquid antiacid, "milk of magnesia and pepto bismol are NOT recommended").
http://medic.wikia.com/wiki/Protocols_and_medical_issues
>>
Basil Bapperbatch - Tue, 25 Apr 2017 22:21:29 EST ID:xzKs8o9I No.391350 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1493173289068.jpg -(254974B / 249.00KB, 800x1131) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>391343
I said civil war(s) within the European Union; implying more than one. Europe is a geographic area under partial administration by the European Union and governed by many national governments under the European Union.

By civil war(s) in the European Union I meant to say that I could see civil wars happening in certain European unnamed countries before there is a second American Civil War.
>>
Frederick Famblestodging - Wed, 26 Apr 2017 01:24:45 EST ID:8Jh2i/ky No.391355 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391350
You realize western Europe hasn't had a single spark of tension since WW2?
There isn't even prejudice inside the population between different Nations any more. The north/south prejudice in the US has become part of pop culture on the other hand...
So who it is supposed between? Italy and Belgium?
LOL!
>>
Hannah Fuckingfuck - Wed, 26 Apr 2017 01:52:22 EST ID:UdKUxyfO No.391356 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391333
They already did that
>>
Basil Bapperbatch - Wed, 26 Apr 2017 02:52:40 EST ID:xzKs8o9I No.391357 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1493189560068.jpg -(109856B / 107.28KB, 892x800) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>391355
I'm talking about civil unrest between migrant and native populations in Europe.
Great Britain,Germany and Sweden are the countries where this is most likely to happen. I'm not talking about wars between European nation states when I write European Civil War(s).

As for your "spark of tension" there are many bombings, shootings etc. I can't stand how delusional and bipolar Europeans are now. I'm glad Le Pen made it to the second round hopefully she can save France from massive civil bloodshed and ethnic cleansing. It's probably a long shot anyway.
>>
Sidney Moshdock - Wed, 26 Apr 2017 04:25:40 EST ID:sUBj56yv No.391358 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391357
> many bombings, shootings etc.

No there isn't. There have been far more Terrorist attack in the US committed by Far-Right then Islamic Terrorist attacks in Europe.
>>
Fucking Hullystet - Wed, 26 Apr 2017 06:11:50 EST ID:zm6+bc30 No.391359 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1493201510428.jpg -(7088B / 6.92KB, 200x244) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>391358

i call bullshit on that claim
>>
Soviet Psychonaut - Wed, 26 Apr 2017 09:17:04 EST ID:2TfYxlWB No.391361 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1493212624235.jpg -(19380B / 18.93KB, 200x255) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>391358
Source or shut the fuck up
>>
Matilda Drisslewell - Wed, 26 Apr 2017 09:26:06 EST ID:FqtcG9EC No.391362 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391359
>>391361
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/analysis-deadly-threat-far-right-extremists-overshadowed-fear-islamic-terrorism/
Not that guy but this source is about America.

Also, in my european country, there has been more far-right terrorist crimes than islamic ones. Sensationalist media tends to focus on the islamic ones though
>>
Hedda Drinnerspear - Wed, 26 Apr 2017 15:08:28 EST ID:LpOVJXPU No.391364 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391362
That article is painful.

First off, over the span of nearly 30 years, it is around 1000 people that died outside of 9/11. Which is 30-40 people a year in a nation of 300,000,000+. More people probably die from lightening strikes a year. Yeah, extremists are such a massive threat to us all. Beat your crisis drums! 0.0000001 persons die as part of the population of the entire US due to extremist attacks. WOW! It is a percent of a percent of a single percent. As in, "IT'S FUCKING NOTHING!"

Second, we have no idea how many of these events are considered extremist and what qualifying material they use as you can't click the sources they cite on their website for some reason. PBS of all things can't host a website. What a shame. It is implied that the far right killings are people that just shoot police at traffic stops while basically any Muslim could kill someone and by the Quarn, they could almost have always done it in the name of Islam. Why don't they list qualifying factors? My bullshit meter is pegging out.

Third, Muslim extremism wasn't promoted by TV until after 9/11. And didn't become a copy-cat endorsement like mass shootings until at least Ft. Hood. Then the media was basically begging for Muslims to kill people so they can get ratings. The right wing shit wasn't popular until after Ruby Ridge and during the 90's and Clinton's term did it become popular make the right-wing crisis clear with the Waco and OKC mess.

Fourth, the article implies that Muslims and Right-Wing extremists could unite and band together into some ultimate terror force. If I could scream and laugh at the same time, I would.

So what are we left with?

>Number one, a muslim going derka derka and blowing you the fuck up isn't going to happen.
>Second, a right-wing terrorist isn't going to go BURN DA FED and kill you.
>Third, Statistics are clearly not in any fear mongering shitheads favor. Learn to read and dissect them.
>Fourth, The timeframe they chose was very biased. You took the height of Right-Wing outrage and took the height of Muslim outrage and combined them together despite them being from 2 different eras of geopolitical circumstance.
>Fifth, This is all bullshit and you are being played along partisan lines to make you fear and think a certain way. Stop buying into their bullshit and perpetuating myths.
>>
Martha Blidgebanks - Wed, 26 Apr 2017 15:38:34 EST ID:Yh0dEBHV No.391365 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391364
>it is implied that the far right killings are people that just shoot police at traffic stops while basically any Muslim could kill someone and by the Quarn, they could almost have always done it in the name of Islam. Why don't they list qualifying factors? My bullshit meter is pegging out.

A huge problem on BOTH sides is the issue of qualifying factors.

That piece of human garbage who shot up the Planned Parenthood in Colorado explicitly stated that he did it so he could scare MDs out of practicing terminations. That is the definition of terrorism. But, since he did it for Jebus, he was labeled "crazy," and not a terrorist. Same with the assholes in Oregon. They tried to incite a rebellion and get called "freedom fighters."

Meanwhile, anyone who is muslim and does something is slammed as an Islamic terrorist, even when evidence points more to "crazy dude who snapped and just happened to be muslim."
>>
Eugene Blammlehidging - Wed, 26 Apr 2017 15:55:34 EST ID:i1eo8CqX No.391367 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1493236534901.jpg -(528079B / 515.70KB, 1280x711) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>391359
>>391361
Not that guy either, but if we're going by number of terror attacks then I'm pretty sure the KKK alone dwarfs the number of Islamic attacks committed throughout Europe.
>>
Nell Cemmlelane - Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:19:12 EST ID:wPIzNzTk No.391368 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391361
>>391359
This isn't about Europe but I still think it's relevant. nb for off topic

https://www.cato.org/blog/gao-weighs-countering-violent-extremism
>>
Edward Cushkit - Wed, 26 Apr 2017 18:24:56 EST ID:7sq5gKde No.391372 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391367

You do realize the time frame on your picture does not support your argument and makes you look dumb?
>>
Soviet Psychonaut - Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:29:59 EST ID:2TfYxlWB No.391375 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391367
>1835-1964

Man that's some seripus grasping at straws
>>
Eugene Blammlehidging - Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:40:30 EST ID:i1eo8CqX No.391377 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391375
>>391372
The original post said this:
>There have been far more Terrorist attack in the US committed by Far-Right then Islamic Terrorist attacks in Europe.
No time frame is specified in that statement. If your responses in the negative to that statement were supposed to be based off of a particular time frame, then you needed to have specified it. If you would like to do so now then go ahead at any point but until you do so my example still stands.
>>
Ebenezer Climmermitch - Wed, 26 Apr 2017 20:06:06 EST ID:zm6+bc30 No.391379 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391377

i suppose if we count every action of the KKK in american history you are correct. i would still strongly suspect the death toll is higher from islamic extremists (here i am raising a new claim). and even if i am wrong from 1865 onward, i am clearly correct in the modern frame

so let me be super robotic and factual to suit your mechanical conversation style: while the technical premise of your post may be correct, the discussion is revolving around current, modern times, and contemporary acts of violence. thus i declare your claim irrelevant to the discussion, and purport in response that within the parameters relevant to the topic of this thread, that comparing right wing violence in the USA to islamic terror attacks in europe is ridiculous and nonsensical.
>>
Sidney Cezzlelun - Wed, 26 Apr 2017 20:22:33 EST ID:i1eo8CqX No.391381 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391379
You still haven't specified a time frame, though. "Current, modern times, and contemporary" could all be interpreted to mean different and contradictory things by different people. If you don't be more specific you leave the door open for me to interpret those words as broadly and as cheekily as I'd like. What time frame does "current, modern times, and contemporary" mean to you?
>>
Ebenezer Climmermitch - Wed, 26 Apr 2017 21:32:22 EST ID:zm6+bc30 No.391382 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391381

how about 1970 onward

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/a-history-of-terrorism-in-europe/


or since 9/11

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/europe-attacks.aspx




or just the past few years

http://time.com/4607481/europe-terrorism-timeline-berlin-paris-nice-brussels/
>>
William Blindlegold - Wed, 26 Apr 2017 22:32:23 EST ID:sMjBd+5i No.391384 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391382
Your first link describes only "terrorism" in a general sense. As in all forms of terrorism, not just "Islamic" terrorism. They even point out that the majority of terrorist attacks in the 70s and 80s were by nationalist groups like the IRA. It also points out that the number of attacks has dropped since 2000. I know the giant failure that is the American education system has probably led you to believe that terrorism = muslims, but that is not the case.

Any website that calls itself "thereligionofpeace.com" is 100% going to be a useless, overly-biased turd. And they made it clear that they're only listing attacks by Islamic groups and leaving out attacks by other groups. So it's not very helpful for your argument.

The third link literally lists 5 attacks from last year in France. Again, not very useful towards proving whatever point you're trying to make here.
>>
Thomas Donnerdock - Fri, 28 Apr 2017 04:24:47 EST ID:slJAyfKG No.391407 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391379
The KKK might as well be the white version of Islamic State.
Their crimes are just as deplorable.
>>
Edwin Churringberk - Fri, 28 Apr 2017 06:28:03 EST ID:hPuECcD3 No.391408 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1493375283937.jpg -(94195B / 91.99KB, 640x580) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>391382
>thereligionofpeace.com
>>
William Tootforth - Fri, 28 Apr 2017 07:20:47 EST ID:S4j4Jd7W No.391409 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391367
The KKK isn't really a big deal.
They committed some murders but compare them to whites killed by blacks and they seem like pretty nice people.
>>
William Tootshit - Fri, 28 Apr 2017 09:22:37 EST ID:Yh0dEBHV No.391412 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391409
>Muh Pepe memes!
>>
Ebenezer Blackstone - Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:34:25 EST ID:iYYYad4Q No.391415 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391407
KKK doesn't do shit these days, half the members are undercover FBI.
>>
Jenny Ciddlekadge - Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:07:42 EST ID:sMjBd+5i No.391416 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391409
Dude, just because you willingly ignored the American history and the KKK's role in it, doesnt mean they didnt do nuffin
>>
Nell Hashdale - Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:15:23 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.391425 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391409

I'm sooo Redpilled! kek you stallion!

You should be embarrassed in the real world.


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.