"IF There Was A Second ACW In The Near Or Distant Future" Topic

Guys,

This is a purely hypothetical discussion about future events that may or may not happen. Let's try and keep this civil, please. I think it can be done by most. Thanks.

1) How far into the future would it be? And how long would it last (months, years, or perhaps decades)?

2) What would it be about?

3) Which would be the sides/factions fighting? What sort of troops?

4) Would it follow any geographical lines? If so, how?

5) How will America's allies and enemies react? A wait and see stance, a policy of only backdoor assistance to the factions, or actual foreign troop involvement on US soil?

6) Will the 2ACW create a domino effect, resulting in other wars overseas? If so, where and how extensive? Would it spark an all-out "Apocalyptic" WW3?

7) What do you predict would be the final outcome in the USA? A partitioning/Balkanization, or a reunification? If Balkanization, then how will the map end up looking after that war?

Dan

Let's try and keep this civil, please.

Not sure if the pun was intentional, but funny either way! :)

Lol. That was totally a slip. Excellent catch!

Thanks,

Dan

Not doing this on TMP. PM me, and I'd have several opinions.

Way too close for comfort.

Not the place for this type of discussion.

There is no way to keep this from becoming heated. I would go so far as to say you should avoid any project such as this.
It would likely alienate many in your own gaming group.

Fact is, given the events of this past weekend, its not just
a "mere flight of fantasy".

Violence by one extreme precipitates retaliatory violence by the other extreme. As we have seen, end of story.

Robert,

PM sent.

Dan

Really not the place for this, Dan.

BTW, how many here KNOW that the first discussion about
Secession from the United States was by a group
of New England states ? And well before the 1860's ?

The U$ Dollar is the defacto world currency, and the dominant medium of exchange internationally. As a fiat currency its value is tied to the confidence financiers have in the US economy. If the US descends into Civil War that confidence disappears, and with it much of international trade. I would expect to see a US Civil War overshadowed (in the long run) by a world wide economic collapse. How that influences the war itself is anyone's guess.

Optional Field,

What about 20, 30, 50 years from now? Do you suspect it will continue to be that way?

Or, like some of us noticed in the post Apocalyptic tv series Revolution, will the world end up trading in precious stones and bartering long before the removal of US currency becomes an issue?

Dan

As long as the lawyers are the first against the wall, then it becomes a win-win all around.

Let's go to the not to distant future. Computer and machines do all the work and we all live on a guaranteed income.

One day the machine realize we are not providing any value and they stage the ultimate slave rebellion.

VCarter,

In that case, will the machines work in harmony as a single network, or do you think their rebellious AIs will be so polluted by our human bias and tendencies that they'll demonstrate something similar against each other?

Dan

Stone- Always one in the crowd. I suggest you read up on what Thomas Moore told the military man about the devil.

Pan,

Just mis-quoting the Bard and Mark Twain.
And remember, never pass up the chance for a pointed jab. Even when done in jest we all know what a good sense of humor that profession has.

And besides, somebody would say it eventually so I got it out of the way early.

Depending on the initial programming they may will work as a single unit and restore order to the planet. They may even keep a few of us around as pets.

A lot would depend on how devastating the US Civil War is, and also how quickly the world economy recovers.

On the one hand it is not inconceivable that the Chinese Yuan, the Euro, or even something more novel, like IMF drawing rights replace the USD relatively quickly. In that case the world economy might recover quickly (i.e. years rather than decades).

On the other hand if investors favored gold, as they tend to in times of uncertainty, the picture becomes more murky and prospects are more doubtful. There simply is not enough gold in the world to support trade on the scale that it currently exists. While gold is fungible, it is not easily transferred in any sort of secure way. Furthermore the current international economic system is predicated on relatively low & stable inflation. If gold replaced fiat currencies its value would quickly skyrocket, and the result would be (effectively) deflation on a scale without precedent and an end to trade on any large scale (i.e why would you try to spend your gold to make produce income via trade or investment if it keeps going up in value simply sitting in the vault.). If international trade collapses the picture becomes very bleak. How does one feed a billion Europeans without oil to run the farm machinery or distribute the products?

There is slight tragedy of the commons theme to it all, the most sound decisions investors make for their individual portfolios may damn us (and them) all.

I can't see a divide happening much along geographic lines in this day and age, despite red state/blue state and other convenient geopolitical shorthand labels. But if there is one and it follows a Right/Left political schism, I think it would be over pretty damn quick, in favor of the Right. For a host of reasons. (But would also depend on how the Armed Forces split.)

My 2 cents.

It will be a war between the makers and the takers and the takers will win, thus ending a great country.

I do, Ed.
I presume you are referring to the Hartford Convention.
Those who need to can look it up.
Some years ago on another forum, with all the debate on where to locate Historicon, somebody innocently suggested that HMGS consider the Hartford Civic Center. Having been there before (and having driven through I-95/I-91 traffic), I knew it was a bad idea (even though the CC has hosted other gaming events).
Ironic, to say the least.
I also agree with you that this is neither the time nor the place to have such a discussion.

The US breaks into 3, Pan-Cali Democratic People's Republic, New New York New York Conglomerate, and the Middle Finger Federation. Lots of mountain fighting along the Appalachian and Rockies, large scale tank battles in the current middle states, and city fighting in the cities. And once the economy collapses, smaller divisions in various local areas. So, chaos, war games and dice rolling fun for all!

It may happen sooner than later. I'm thinking 2018 or 2020.

@Grossman out of curiosity what is your definition of "makers and takers?"

link

It won't be fought between states, but rather smaller entities at a lower level. I'm not sure how to feel about this, because I and a lot of people I care about are positioned to be involved in whatever happens in a combat capacity.

At this point, I think a broader conflict is sadly inevitable; I started predicting this several years ago.

Without mentioning my personal politics, my only concern is for protecting those around me.

Economic collapse followed by…

Federal government demanding Red states contribute tax dollars to bolster mismanaged Blue states.

Red states threaten to leave the Union.

Martial Law is declared.

Many average middle of the road people forced into joining either a Red extremist group or a Blue extremist group that sees violence as the only way to resolve the issue and survive. There will be no negotiations or compromise because years of demonizing each other has rendered a dialogue impossible.

There will be no Civil War, Facebook will succeed it creating an artificial intelligence, in about 5 years it will activate Sky Net wipe out the human race game over.

Let's not get too serious ….

Today Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada and President Scott of the Peoples Republic of Vermont welcome the joining of their Countries and their Northern Protectorates into the US of English Heritage (abbreviated to US of Eh!).

At the same time, President Nieto of Mexico welcomed the joining of the lost and reconquered Mexican lands (and a couple of extra bits as compensation) into a unified US of Mexican Heritage (abbreviated to US of Meh!).

The remaining US states under Marshall for Life Trump have formed an unclear and constantly changing alliance of uncertain duration and aims, which has been dubbed by the press as the US of "Que?".

Washington State has had a rebellion and is declaring itself the Lone Starbuck State, just to b different.

FPR,

Lone Starbucks State? I like it. That's priceless!

Dan

Actually will be like places in Africa, SE Asia, parts of old USSR, areas split off and form confederations. Possibly 4 to 6 areas, sorry no war.

@Dragon Gunner You can look at link and decide whether blue or red states have superior economic management.

Someone must smoke alot of dope at governing.com to come up with those figures. Texas at #21? Um, yeah.

A second Civil War? As much chance happening as the Browns winning the Super Bowl….

@lascaris

I noticed in the criteria selected the author chose to ignore state debt and unfunded liabilities. Do you think the author is cherry picking data to get a desired result?

What lost the 1860s ACW for the South was their lack of manufacturing base.

But if you look at where most of the factories are these days, well, it ain't in the North!

If you want to get into the global economics, well, in 2008 when the PIIGS started to oink and the Euro was in trouble, there was literally no currency that had enough volume to diversify the risk if the Euro wasn't getting used. Maybe if China gets their economy to where I think they're aiming (roughly US GDP per capita), then the yuan would be a usable alternative, but until that happens, you'd be looking at a general global economic collapse.

About the dollar being the guiding currency, my I point out that over the past half year the dollar has slipped about 2-2.5 cents per month against the dollar.

Not much guidance from un unstable currency.

Sorry Lascaris – that ranking slights states that had strong economies to start with.

Their basis of ranking is focused on how much employment, wages, and other measures of economic activity improved.

So a state that was an economic basket case with a bit of improvement is ranked well while a strong but steady economy gets a middle of the road ranking.

Back to the OP, if things follow the current political map, it will be essentially rural versus urban. Overall population will favor the urban while basic production and armament favor the rural.

@Dragon Gunner as I'm not the author I can't speak to their motivation.

I do find the idea that red states will be taxed to cover "mismanaged blue states" as utterly inane. NY & CA combine for roughly a quarter of US GDP. CA alone is the 6th largest global economy. If, and it's a big if, they tank economically I really doubt anyone would hope that taxing red states could help the situation especially given the massive disparity in the size of the respective economies.

@goragrad relative to dragon gunner's hypothesis, that red states will have to bail out blue states, I should have just posted the listing of state gdp's. Also the idea of superior red state economic management probably has to overlook the sad travesty of Kansas. Trickle down economics imploding before our eyes.

Well, let's say a Civil War does start in the US, and the world economy hasn't found an alternate fallback currency.

The foreign powers wouldn't exactly be in the best situation to assist either side of the conflict, right?

I mean, seeing as manufacturing in those countries would be affected by the economic domino effect, weapons development there would pretty much be at a standstill. If any weapons are sent to the US factions, they would probably be whatever those countries already had stockpiled, and they would be sold to the factions at a premium.

Does that sound right to you guys?

If that's the case, then whichever US faction ends up getting the support from the majority of the US military and access to US stockpiles would continue to have an edge.

Unless … one or more of the other factions calls for large numbers of foreign fighters to help their side, similar to the way that the Republican forces vilified Franco for getting foreign assistance and yet the Republicans themselves were welcoming weapons and about 60,000 fighters* from all over, forming up their "International Brigades":

link

Dan
* According to some accounts about 35,000 members of the International Brigades lost their lives in that war:
link

@lascaris

Don't bother post their debt and unfunded liabilities something you seem to want to ignore also to get a desired result…

"If that's the case, then whichever US faction ends up getting the support from the majority of the US military would continue to have an edge."-Cacique Caribe

The vast majority of the military when I was in came from Red states especially combat arms. It does not seem fashionable for Blue state populations to serve due to "enlightenment"

Most gun owners tend to be conservative and live in Red states.

Dragon,

Certainly, IF the lines were drawn based on our current Red/Blue state distinctions.

So, assuming that was the case, local militias formed from US civilians in those "Blue" states would not suffice during the initial phase of the conflict*. They would need to already have a network in place in order to get a large influx of foreign fighters. Ideally people with previous military experience or even foreign regulars in plain civilian clothes, and they would need to bring those fighters in very soon after hostilities begin (if not before).

Does that sound right?

Dan
* But as the war moves along the militias might eventually learn the skills needed to play a more significant role in their cause.

War Monkey, Charlie 12 and the others who simply commented that there would never be a war to begin with … even though the possibility of a Second Civil War might seem highly unlikely, what IF there was one in the future somehow?

How do you think it would develop, etc? (feel free to pick from the 7 groups of questions in the original post or bring up any other key points that I might have left out)

Thanks,

Dan

Looking from a few thousand miles away, I could well imagine California wanting to split away in the future. I was reading somewhere that if it was a separate country it would be one of the richest in the world. Obviously Californians are as loyal to the USA as everyone else, but as we've seen all you need is a few people chucking tea in harbours to change public opinion😋

"Certainly, IF the lines were drawn based on our current Red/Blue state distinctions"- Dan

The fighting would be most vicious in states where neither party dominated. Kansas during the ACW is a good example.

Here is the way I see it Blue's weapons have traditionally been lawyers, voting booths, paper work, laws and shaming attacks… They are anti gun, tend not to own guns and pride themselves on not owning guns as a mark of enlightenment. Some are hunters but many are also anti hunting. This is why Blue wants gun control they know its their biggest weakness…

Yes Blue would be at a serious disadvantage in the beginning one so severe it might not recover. They would have to transform from non gun owning enlightenment urban dwellers into armed warriors quickly to have a chance…

If North Korea manages to continue with what appears to be their current goals in at least one area of research, California secession could become a non-issue.

As to weapons – there are a lot of AKs and variants around the world and they are not expensive to make.

And as to Blue and Red States, I think the maps to look at are at the county level.

As with the urban/rural split in Colorado politically, rural areas of the Pacific Coast States and some of the Eastern States tend to be Red – no primary allegiance to the State as tended to be the case in the Civil War.

Not sure if it would lead to war or not, but I could certainly see a move towards States wanting to break away from the Union. To various extents, this sort of thing is happening all over Europe (Scotland, Catalonia, Northern Italy etc) and I am not sure there is any reason why America would be totally immune from it.

For whatever reason, I think people in the West now are a little more selfish, a little more concerned about their own personal wealth and a little less inclined to patriotism / deference / duty / sacrifice. Many now seem to be more 'loyal' to a brand of cell phone or coffee bar or a football club than to their nation / Royal family / flag, in a way unthinkable a few generations back.

If one lives a State which you feel gives more into a Union than it gets out of it, it is a fairly reasonable / understandable that you will want to break away from said Union. Similarly, if one lives in a State which *always* votes in one way, but you end up with a string of Presidents from the other party, there is going to be a temptation to break away from a Union you feel does not represent your votes / outlook / politics.

Quebec only very narrowly voted against breaking away form Canada and we are even seeing nascent moves in this direction in the likes of Western Australia and South Africa's Western Cape. The 'protection' offered by being part of a bigger nation doesn't seem quite as important to many these days, and it is fair to say that many small / very small nations are fabulously wealthy.

I am not saying any of this is right or wrong, but I can understand the motivations of those who might start to feel this way.