"civil war fantasies" Topic

link

A discussion of a possible modern civil war in US, mostly along the lines of "here's how it is NOT going to happen".

No, seriously, watch the trailer of the new film: TEXAS and CALIFORNIA are the two states who have joined to fight togehter???

Well, I guess I'm a bad American…and proud of it.

And no, Texas and California have nothing at all in common. Nothing.

Stupid movie, I'm sure it will be used to attack and other conservatives and republicans in general as the divisive ones, eh? Besides, there would not be a "Red State" vs "Blue State" situation. The Democrats are now a "archipelago party" which dominates the top major metropolitan areas, while "Red" Republican dominates everything else…places that produce the food, water and other resources needed by the cities.

So if Republicans/Conservatives revolt because of a tyrannical leftist Federal government the Federal supporters would soon starve. And I can't see conservatives supporting tyranny despite the leftist memes.

Anyways -- here's your more realistic map. How long do the Blue Cities hang on before surrender. 30 days? 90 Days? Do they, in the style of Kurt Schlicter's "Big Split" novels appeal for aid from the CCP, Russia and the UN and invite in Blue Helmets and CCP advisors?

LOL, ridiculous map.

Your red militia would kill your sons, take your wife and daughters. They would leave you crying on the floor.

Ha! So much red! Why worry?

The author of the OP has thought and written quite a lot about possible scenarios. Any of which would be very bad, as he makes clear. But of course we wargame lots of really bad wars -- which are arguably ALL of them. But Bobrob, why would a 'red militia" abuse its own civilians, which would be their own families and friends?

I saw the trailer … this will be on my don't see list …

The map is striking, but remember there are plenty of Democrats living in red areas -- just not a majority -- and plenty of Reps living in those blue cities. We are all mixed together, for better and for worse.

But the blue cities depend on constant inflow of food from red areas, and (just as an example) how many troops would it take to keep I75 from Chattanooga to Atlanta open against a hundred snipers able to hide in the rural areas through which it mostly goes? Schlicter discusses that at length in one of his books.

On a lighter note, the BEE did a hilarious series on a CA couple moving to Texas.

link

Maybe he just saw Red Militia and thought is was the traditional Red Army. Easy mistake.

Here's more on the CIVIL WAR film, with a rather implausible map:

link

Fantasy is correct. Whichever way the military jumps, that side wins. The fantasy that 100 fat mossy oak commando wanna be operators can do more than die quickly never considered an Apache or a Reaper.

The US military is remarkably loyal, quite good and from my discussions with active pilots, disgusted by the idea of violent disruption be it left or right.

Yet those pilots depend on ground crews and fuel, and also have families. Do we remember Afghanistan? or before that, VietNam? you think American hillbillies are less dangerous? May not be (at first) as tough, but they would be enormously better equipped and technically savvy, and living in an area far larger among a population far greater than those other examples.

To secure a big rural county, you probably need at least—at least—a couple battalions of infantry. But just how many battalions are there? The brigade combat team (BCT) is the main unit of action in the U.S. military. There are 31 active-duty brigades, and 27 National Guard brigades, so 58 total. There are 3 or 4 ground combat battalions per BCT, so let's say 130 battalions. Add some Marines and some military police units, and call it roughly 200 battalions. Many of those are stationed overseas. America has 3,006 counties.

Schlichter, Kurt. We'll Be Back: The Fall and Rise of America (pp. 159-160). Regnery Publishing. Kindle Edition.

Now, the military will win any firefight it gets into, at least at first. It can concentrate combat power from multiple battlefield operating systems in a way a bunch of guys with small arms cannot. The military can visualize the battlespace effectively with everything from satellites to aircraft and drones as well as electronic systems. It would be able to detect concentrations of guerilla forces and intervene with systems that the insurgents could not defend against directly—bombers, drones with missiles, tanks and artillery. How do insurgents fight against such overwhelming force? Well, they don't fight it, not directly. Let's put aside the lessons of Ukraine about light infantry armed with modern man-portable anti-tank missiles. Let's just talk about light infantry armed with modern sporting rifles like the AR-15. An Abrams tank is invulnerable to rifle fire. The guys in the tank, not so much. They eventually have to get out to feed and fuel and rearm. And then they are vulnerable, but even more vulnerable are the supply columns needed to haul the beans, bullets, and gas that make the tank work. Imagine a convoy of tanker trucks headed down a freeway out in the sticks. There would be lots of security protecting it—taking troops away from offensive tasks—but those tankers are big, juicy targets for guys with rifles. A few rounds from a distance and pretty soon fuel is spraying all over the asphalt from .308 holes. The answer to that is more security—which takes more troops away from hunting down the guerillas. It becomes the proverbial self-licking ice cream cone—force protection for the counterinsurgents, not offensive action, becomes the focal point of the operation. With the aversion to casualties we have seen grow in recent decades, this would be entirely in character. The guerilla forces, allowed to operate freely because they would not be pressured by sustained offensive action, would grow. At the same time, the counterinsurgents' bases grow as the pilots and drone controllers and commanding officers realize that living off-post is dangerous. You can't shoot down a Predator drone with a .357, but you can use one to end a controller as he stands in line to get a Frappuccino on the way to work at Nellis Air Force Base. Bases require even more forces to protect them. In Northern Ireland, the police and military barracks became fortresses, separating the counterinsurgents from the people. There is footage of the Brits on patrol, running from building to building with their L1A1 SLRs ready, waiting for the IRA guys to open up with their ArmaLites. Yes, that was a presence, but not an effective one for counterinsurgency. When the squaddies retreated behind their walls, the provos owned the town. An actual civil war, at least during the early phases, would probably look a lot like a law enforcement operation supported by some military elements. In other words, the FBI and the local police—sometimes—would be acting as if they sought to arrest criminals. But criminals are different from combatants. Criminals avoid the cops. Combatants seek them out. Civilian police forces are not designed to combat people who are hunting them right back.

Schlichter, Kurt. We'll Be Back: The Fall and Rise of America (pp. 161-163). Regnery Publishing. Kindle Edition.

Hamilton County Tennessee where I live has major infrastructure including hydroelectric and nuclear plants, a river that is a major transportation route for things like coal, and is where I24 and I75 meet. Secure it with a battalion? LOL! A brigade MIGHT suffice, but even that is doubtful. And that would be if the willingness existed to inflict civilian casualties. Which might have, you know, unintended consequences.

One final thought and then I'm done for the night. The red/blue map SB posted is of counties. The chiel law officer of a county is the sheriff. In most states sheriffs are elected. What are the odds that a red county sheriff would be sympathetic to a red insurgency? High. And what does a sheriff bring to the fight? Most of all, LEGITIMACY. He can deputize as many men as desired. Some of whom would find the idea of taking on the FNI to be exhilarating. We've already had wars with lawmen on both sides: was it the Johnson County War or the Lincoln County War, I can never keep them straight. In a civil war, the political considerations are paramount, and legitimacy -- a LOCAL and ELECTED officer versus a far away capital, can we say Hunger Games? -- would be key.

I live in a Red County and I know both our Sheriff and two of the neighboring county sheriff's. They are good men and loyal to the People of our area, both red and blue. Any individual seeking to harm a fellow resident over silly political differences will find themselves jailed at best. Anyone opting for treasonous violence will likely find little sympathy. Most of our rural county are first and foremost patriots and treason will find little purchase.

Another thing to consider is that one side has been trying to ban guns for decades, and even has an aversion to owning any themselves, while the other side has been buying them like crazy. A civil war between both sides, at the civilian level, isn't going to last very long…

"Treason doth never prosper; what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

Some interesting maps are here:

link

Yes, very interesting, and a big reason why a "national divorce" is not feasible. And why a civil war would be really really nasty, neighbor against neighbor. Like the Carolinas in 1780-83.

Yep, those maps still show the Democrats are an "Archipelago Party" that dominates the large cities, and very little else. Yes, that's where a large % of the population lives, but they are completely dependent on the Republican Party-aligned areas for everything that makes city living possible -- food, water, energy and goods.

Water: Water is the first thing people need. A person can survive only a few days without water. If there is a source of clean water, then it's a no brainer. If there is a source of tainted water, then depending on the city the authorities (or someone else inside) might be able to set up a purification system; worst case scenario, boiling it makes it safe enough to drink. If there isn't a water source, there are two more things to consider: can one be found? what's the current amount available per person? Digging wells is probably the first thing people would do in order to find a water source. If none can be found, and there's no tools avaiable for digging deeper, then the town supply is all that's left. Depending on the amount of it, and the number of people inside, a City could probably last a few weeks or a few days, not much longer.

Food: In the first few days of a City Siege, most people wouldn't ration their food, hoping everything to be over soon. A few more days go by, and perishables begin to go bad. If people are smart and capable, they could save a lot of it with several preservation techniques, but chances are it would just rot. I wouldn't give any City more than a month or two before food becomes a life or death issue. Consider people can survive about 3 weeks without eating, but that's not a pretty picture.

Energy: Modern cities are only livable because of a steady supply of electricity and natural gas for heating and cooking. Any long-term disruption of energy supplies quickly compounds the Water and Food supply situation as refrigeration is not available, water pumps and electricity powered filtration systems fail, city sewage will fail. A city government may have up to a week of diesel generator fuel for a handful of critical city services and sites (emergency command center, hospital, emergency communications, etc.) – but the rest of the city is in the dark. Oh, high-rise apartment dwellers will end up living down on the street levels or the street because no elevators, no lights, nothing.

Other impacts include a Medical services crisis, and exploding Crime.

So blue Cities will basically die within 30 days.

+1 McKinstry.

The reality of what is likely to happen escapes some people. It's not about numbers. A bunch of guys who go to the range with their "sporting rifles" do not make a platoon of trained and equipped infantry. If the Army is somehow forced to fire on a bunch like this, how many "heroes" would stick it out? I am not asking, really. It's a dumb premise from the start.

While we have about half a billion firearms in circulation, it does not mean there are significant numbers of people willing to murder US soldiers en masse as part of an armed revolt against America. Nor will they want to be imprisoned, throwing their lives away.

The reasons for this drastic step are not very clear either.I don't always like everything I see, but life in the US is really good in so many ways. It seems like some people forget. I just don't believe what I hear from the big media profiteer company. Or other conspiracy purveyors.

Ah, inviting in the CCP to the big cities. This has already happened. Their main state bank has its western headquarters in a certain tower in NYC. But these Schlicter books sounds like they are biased in quite the opposite direction of the movie in question. In any case the possibility is very slim, IMO.

But these Schlicter books sounds like they are biased in quite the opposite direction of the movie in question. In any case the possibility is very slim, IMO

Oh of course, in his cautionary tale the Red-Blue divide results in "The Big Split" without a full civil war, in which the Blues take over the archipelago cities and populated coastal areas, the Red take over the rest.

The "Blues" are a parody (maybe not such a parody) of contemporary post-Constitutional Democrats with their racial and sexual ideologies and neo-Marxist bent. Their areas continue to devolve at the same pace current Big Blue cities are devolving.

"Red" country basically represents areas of functional constitutional governance.

The books mostly involve espionage missions into "Blue" areas to rescue dissidents and stop Big Bad Blue things. In one book the MC is basically a pathfinder/scout to help foil the plans of the People's Republic of California to homebase a large "allied" Chinese military force, and there's a battle scene set along a stretch of Highway 280 near the famous "Flintstone House" against a Chinese expeditionary force.

SBminisguy. On a serious note, would it not be easy to poison the water supplies of many cities? Most I've seen at best, have only a fence around them. A very very small determined group could do it.

Knocking out the power grids. Again we have done very little to protect ours. Imagine being knocked out in the cities in winter.

Stop the trash from leaving the cities and supply and fuel trucks from entering. Park all your vehicles on highways and disable them. Rig some with explosives.

Of course blow bridges, sabotage rail lines, cellphone towers, dams and power plants.

These are things possible and takes a very few people to maximize suffering nationwide.

We don't protect our infrastructure. These are all things I fear, are current terrorists possibilities.

Yes, cities are very vulnerable. And while McK and Tort are no doubt correct that the vast majority of us are decent moderate folks, . . . does that really matter? Say a movement draws support of half a million people -- which is what, .1% of the population? -- that is still plenty enough to cause enormous breakdown of vulnerable systems. I'm sure the FBI is trying its best to infiltrate any such. By going after Roman Catholics and evangelicals.

"Right now, there are more guns than people in the US. Tomorrow, that gun/people ratio will grow, as it has for years, and shows no sign of stopping.

Every day, 3D manufacturing technology continues to improve.

You're already able to make a functioning gun at home, using free, publicly-available printing files. As that technology improves, we will reach the gun singularity, wherein you can make a gun at home of the same or better quality than you'd get from a manufacturer.

Soon after, you'll be able to print better weapons at home than the meandering bureaucracy at the Pentagon can procure.

We won't need to be terrorist groups or cartels to get machine guns from the CIA and ATF. We'll just make our own, and our stuff will be better than theirs.

And thanks to Tor nodes, VPNs and other privacy tech, they won't even be able to know who's making them, or where they are.

— Spike Cohen at X (Twitter)"

I'm told by some in the gun culture that it is assumed that any group of more than three or four will include an FBI informant. And if someone suggests something illegal, HE's the FBI guy.

I find it interesting that there is a widespread assumption that the military will stay on the blue side. Top leadership (the perfumed princes) will, but I'm not so sure about the rank and file.

Based on contemporary TV shows almost all former military are a bunch of wack jobs just waiting to go off.

"On a serious note, would it not be easy to poison the water supplies of many cities? Most I've seen at best, have only a fence around them."

You'd need dozens of tanker trucks dumping their loads to even register some contamination; Small amounts would simply be diluted in the huuuge volume of water…

I'm certain the majority of our fellow citizens, both red and blue, would be happy to put down a rabid .1% of the population attempting treason as would the vast majority of the Armed Forces who, enlisted or officer, are fundamentally there because of a deep loyalty. I never served with anyone who while not liking elements of our government wasn't deeply loyal to the idea of the United States.

I know the vast majority of our ( my counties 17,300 rural residents) red and blue citizens (call it 60/40 red/blue) should any extremist dipweed be they Antifa or Proud Boy, act to harm the Country, would react as needed if called upon to put down such rabid scum.

Zephyr,

That may be true for the storage areas, but there are other ways, including cyber attacks.

This is from the Office of Homeland, security, and preparedness from 2010

"Key Findings

• Both domestic and international terrorist groups have expressed interest in contaminating drinking water in the United States, and domestic groups have attempted to do so with some success. However, there are no known threats to New Jersey's Water Sector at this time.

• The types of contaminants most likely to be used by terrorists are biological and chemical agents that are accessible, not easily susceptible to degradation, and that overcome the dilution, filtration, and disinfection aspects of the drinking water process.

• The Storage and Distribution stage of the drinking water process is the stage most
vulnerable to contamination. More specifically, although it has yet to become a
conventional threat, backflow contamination – increased pressure on the user side of the
connection, forcing water and contaminants back into distribution pipelines – debunks
traditional thought regarding the feasibility of drinking water contamination, in that it
requires fewer resources and can be instigated at access points such as fire hydrants and
most types of residential and commercial connections."

Subject: The Potential Terrorist Risk of Drinking Water Contamination | Public Intelligence


link

Some small Examples

"In 1984, members of the Rajneeshee religious cult contaminated a city water supply tank in The Dalles, Oregon, using Salmonella and infected 750 people.[1]

In 1992 The Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) put lethal concentrations of potassium cyanide in the water tanks of a Turkish Air Force compound in Istanbul.

In 2000, workers at the Cellatex chemical plant in northern France dumped 5000 liters of sulfuric acid into a tributary of the Meuse River when they were denied workers' benefits.[1]

In 2000, Queensland police arrested a man for using a computer and a radio transmitter to take control of the Maroochy Shire wastewater system and release sewage into parks, rivers and property."

The last was not that small actually.

Another article.

Subject: U.S. Water Supply System Being Targeted By Cybercriminals


link

The problem, McK, is that there are (and always have been) divergent ideas of what the US is and should be. Chances are that both Antifa and the Proud Boys have such an idea -- but probably not the same one and probably not yours or mine.

God, I hope not. Even that map is an abstraction: every neighborhood has representatives of both parties. If the country failed, it would fail like Spain in 1936: mass chaos, murder, every kind of crime, and misery and suffering for everyone. Nobody should want that.

And the military would not be enough to stop that kind of failure: it would be engulfed by it. This is an enormous country, and not even Grant and Sherman at the height of their success, with enormous armies, actually thought they could hold the South. They garrisoned a few strategic points and blew through, depending on the land and waterways for resupply. And that took the better part of a century to recover from.

McK +1

I find it interesting that there is a widespread assumption that the military will stay on the blue side.

Yeah, I think there would be some on both side. But more on the RED … I'd think. Regardless it is more Sci-fi than reality.

I remember years ago there were a number of war games about an ACW breaking out again. Like in the 30s, etc.

Nine Pound, yes, precisely. Schlicter makes those same points.

And we HAVE seen such horrible wars, here and in Spain and elsewhere. It is naive to protest that it cannot happen.

Hmmm…so the Democrats in Colorado have used Lawfare to prevent Trump from appearing on the ballot in that State claiming he's an insurrectionist. He is most evidently not, and has not been charged with or found guilty of insurrection. Indeed he is on record as saying people should, "peacefully and patriotically protest and let our voices be heard."

This will be appealed to SCOTUS, but clearly Democrats they don't like Democracy and our Constitution and this is why people talk about a 2nd Civil War since one Party seems to no longer feel constrained by the Founding Documents and will go to increasingly damaging and desperate measures to prevent him from winning a 2nd term.

And we could well see a red state legislature retaliate by keeping Biden off its ballot.

Too political. Generalizations about Dems. I don't belong to a party but this is too political. This whole post is aptly named and has little connection to reality.as a gaming fantasy it could be considered, IMO.

You neglected to mention any of former guys language before the break in at the Capitol, which disrupted the certification of votes, the very heart of democracy. But that's not allowed here either. Blue Fez…..

Agreed. But (as in 1861) the political determines how the military falls.

What McK and others including yourself are arguing -- that sanity will prevail -- is true FOR NOW, and thank God for that. But we have just seen the CO SC do an insane thing. In any case, events happen and things change.

Decades ago during the height of the Cold War somebody wrote that only a mad man would start a nuclear war. And someone else replied, you know that you are predicting nuclear war, right? Because history is filled with insane rulers, including ruling classes.

This will be appealed to SCOTUS,

And they will see easily that this political and no one should not be able to vote for a candidate of their choice. It is ridiculous to think this way. This is still the USA not the USSA, that some are trying to make it … The local judges, etc. that have said this is legal should be somehow recalled, etc. They violated the law, AFAIK …

seems to no longer feel constrained by the Founding Documents

Yes, only following what fits their narrative and agenda. E.g. what is happening on the Southern border is illegal by the Constitution, etc.

You neglected to mention any of former guys language before the break in at the Capitol, which disrupted the certification of votes, the very heart of democracy. But that's not allowed here either.

Start the thread on the Fez and bring the receipts! Which is to say, prove it! Every time I dive into some Orangemanbad attack on "the very heart of democracy" it turns out to be something twisted out of context AND often times projection by those making the attack.

One party using lawfare to keep the other party from voting for its candidate is one way you get a civil war.

This is still the USA not the USSA, that some are trying to make it

There's the core issue of division, isn't it? The Left's agenda is unpalatable and not supported by most American voters once they become aware of it, so the Left must resort to force, intimidation, manipulation and guile to get their way.

Whoa! There has been no charge or conviction for sedition and the CO court has no business making its determination unless there is a conviction. A number of other states have rightly refused to go down this path. The CO justices knew full well this would end up with SCOTUS.

I objected to the portrayal of the POTUS acting only as a peacemaker that day by quoting his later remarks, as if the remarks he made earlier in the day and at various other times could be ignored. The election was in fact disrupted. But no charges of sedition have even been filed, which undermines the insurrection finding in CO which preceded removal from the ballot.

There is evidence on other charges however and the courts will decide. None of these charges should have an impact on whether he is on the ballot.

"…it turns out to be something twisted out of context…"

"Indeed he is on record as saying…" from right above.

lol. I'm sure I could cherry-pick a decent comment from the most vile of characters, and a questionable comment from the most angelic of persons.

The election was in fact disrupted.

Yes, it was, wasn't it? Hey, here's a thought -- where was the concern when Democrats alleged election fraud in 2000 and in 2004? When they called Bush "selected not elected" and that he had only won through fraud, tried to block certification and called Bush a traitor? Oh, they did the same thing in 2016, yes? And the Democrats also fabricated the Russia Collusion hoax and dragged our country through hell, not to mention trashing relations with Russia, and not only did they call Trump a traitor then -- the media and Entertainment industry indulged in scores of fantasy Trump executions. Kathy Griffin sawing off Trump's head with a machete, off-Broadway plays and even a movie about assassinating him, etc.

So when the 2020 election got weird, and we went to bed with Trump winning after supposedly the counting stations closed for the night yet we woke up to Biden as the winner -- getting more votes than Obama, indeed getting the most votes of any president in history? For a man who barely left his basement and had fewer people at his rallies than at a kissing booth at an alligator farm? Questions. But if you raised a question there was a uniform scream by the media establishment and the Democrats (oops, but I repeat myself) to silence you. Yeah, questions and more questions about that.

Being uncertain of the outcome and wanting to make sure the vote was valid is not attacking democracy -- quite the opposite. Indeed, if the Democrats were so keen to support democracy they would have totally supported an open and transparent election audit and recount, knowing that Biden won fairly and the results would be a poke in the eye to the Trumpies. Yet they blocked every audit using procedural legal tricks, screamed at you if you raised the idea, manipulated the banking system to punish people asking the question (Pillow dude), and in the case that went the furthest (Arizona) refused to comply with lawful orders from the State Assembly for an open audit of the results.

So why wouldn't Trump be pissed? Why wouldn't many voters be pissed? Why wouldn't they want to use the lawful Constitutional method allowed to challenge the certification of the EC vote? Certainly the Democrats did that in 2000, 2004 and 2016. And even calling on Pence to return some State certifications back for review was a lawful process -- he had that power as a VP (which is why the Democrats passed a measure stripping away this power after Team Biden took over). That's not insurrection or attacking democracy.

You know what is attacking representative democracy? Undermining vote integrity and then attacking those who try to re-establish a fair and transparent voting system. And that's not Trump's doing, he's on record calling for Voter ID and other vote integrity measures. Get this -- where I live I have to present a State-issued photo ID and TWO utility bills with my current address to get a LIBRARY CARD. But last time I went to vote the polling station workers refused to look at a photo ID, did not want to see one, and though I could tell them my address they did not need it to give me a ballot. Crazy.

This kind of thing fuels the frustrated civil war fantasy. A house divided against itself cannot stand, and you cannot have only one-half of political society playing by the rules and have a successful society.

Sb, yes.