Do you think an inter-state civil war is possible in the 21st century?

[taurusowner]

I agree that some sort of civil war is possible, even likely at some point in the future.  But I think the lines will be drawn with ideology, not geography.  I stand more with the people on this forum than I ever would with the people who happen to live near me.  I think one of the things that changed between the 1860s and now is that ideology back then was largely symmetrical with geography.  Political issues such as slavery, taxes on manufacturing vs taxes on farming, and succession were issues important to people who lived in certain areas. These days, with so much inter-connectivity and mobility, issues bridge distances.  A civil war of the 2000's will not be Michigan vs. Ohio or Arizona vs. California.  It will probably be citizens of all 4 of those states who believe in A vs citizens of all 4 of those states who believe B.

[Hutch]

What Brimic said.  

On a less deadly "battlefield", maybe we could have team competitions like "Daily Kos" vs. "Free Republic" games.  Anybody remember a slapstick competition show from decades back called "Almost Anything Goes"?

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

I thought I posted something insightful here. Appears not.

I don't see an inter-state civil war happening, unless 49 states declare war on Texas.
And open warfare of the blue state/red state variety would be rather short. There are a lot of nukes in flyover country - and once the anti-FedGov side got hold of one of those, a truce would probably be arranged in short order.

An insurgency, sure. Those don't really require standing up to tanks and close air support on a regular basis.

[brimic]

And open warfare of the blue state/red state variety would be rather short. There are a lot of nukes in flyover country - and once the anti-FedGov side got hold of one of those, a truce would probably be arranged in short order.

The problem with the Red state/Blue state paradigm is that even in Blue states the 'Blue People' are mainly concentrated into small geographical areas. Nuking such an area will not be as effective as Red People who are embedded in those small areas or in surrounding red areas cutting off food, raw materials, transportation, etc.

[Hugh Damright]

I wonder about civil war as a result of a constitutional convention ... suppose it becomes obvious that 3/4 of the states are being ruled by 1/4 of the states, and the 3/4 of the states call for a convention and propose/ratify amendments to improve their situation ... I am not sure that the 1/4 of the states would respect the properly introduced/ratified amendments, and those 1/4 of the States might be in a position to use the US military to try to force some other order upon us all.

[Scout26]

Someone just wake me up when the shootin' starts....

[seeker_two]

Divisions by state....most likely not....

Divisions by cultural and political beliefs....most likely so.....

Our next civil war will look more like Northern Ireland or Bosnia....no standing armies or cavalry charges....more car bombs and assasinations....not pretty at all....

[Silver Bullet]

Divisions by state....most likely not....

Divisions by cultural and political beliefs....most likely so.....

They need us, we don't need them.

[taurusowner]

I am not sure that the 1/4 of the states would respect the properly introduced/ratified amendments, and those 1/4 of the States might be in a position to use the US military to try to force some other order upon us all.

But who in the military would follow the orders of politicians who are blatantly ignoring the Constitution?

[TommyGunn]

But who in the military would follow the orders of politicians who are blatantly ignoring the Constitution?

Most of our politicians are doing that right now and the military is still following orders . .. ... . . . . .... 

[kgbsquirrel]

But who in the military would follow the orders of politicians who are blatantly ignoring the Constitution?

The 25% of those surveyed that answered 'agree' or 'strongly agree' to the following question:

46. The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-approved firearms. A 30-day amnesty period is established for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of irregular citizen groups and defiant individuals refuse to turn over their firearms to authority.

Consider the following statement:

"I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the United States government."

If you can't trust that even most of only a few hundred politicians would adhere to their oaths to the constitution, what are the odds that the entire military of some 3 million people will adhere to it, let alone actually be well versed in the specific powers and rights delegated and enumerated in that document and thus be equipped to readily identify and refuse an unconstitutional order?

[taurusowner]

Key word: blatant.  There is a BIG difference between the selective enforcement of a miasma of confusingly written law, and a politician just stating "I refuse to recognize The ____th Amendment".


kgbsquirrel, care to cite not only the text of the survey, but the actual data regarding answers?

[kgbsquirrel]

Key word: blatant.  There is a BIG difference between the selective enforcement of a miasma of confusingly written law, and a politician just stating "I refuse to recognize The ____th Amendment".


kgbsquirrel, care to cite not only the text of the survey, but the actual data regarding answers?

As part of LCDR Cunningham's academic project while earning his Masters he dispensed said survey to three hundred marines at 29 Palms. It was conducted on May 10th, 1994. Approximately one quarter of the survey group responded "agree" or "strongly agree" to that particular question. Also to the preceding question which I did not include in my excerpt, asking if they would swear allegiance to the United Nations, approximately one quarter of the group also answered in the affirmative.


ETA: Should I include a reference to the actual, and not hypothetical survey, gun seizures by National Guard troops and local police in New Orleans following Katrina?

[seeker_two]

As part of LCDR Cunningham's academic project while earning his Masters he dispensed said survey to three hundred marines at 29 Palms. It was conducted on May 10th, 1994. Approximately one quarter of the survey group responded "agree" or "strongly agree" to that particular question. Also to the preceding question which I did not include in my excerpt, asking if they would swear allegiance to the United Nations, approximately one quarter of the group also answered in the affirmative.


ETA: Should I include a reference to the actual, and not hypothetical survey, gun seizures by National Guard troops and local police in New Orleans following Katrina?

IIRC, it was LA and CA LEO's that were doing the confiscations, not Nat'l Guard. But the point still stands.

In response, I'd want to ask a random number of gun owners, "If Nat'l Guard soldiers and LEO's were coming to take your guns, would you fire upon them?"



Post no answers, please. This you have to decide in your own mind....

[Hugh Damright]

But who in the military would follow the orders of politicians who are blatantly ignoring the Constitution?

From my southeastern perspective, if the US military attacked the red states for the sake of the blue states who were ignoring the US Constitution, it wouldn't be the first time.