# Impending US Civil War? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 14, 2009, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impending-us-civil-war/521169 "2009-12-14T01:53:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impending-us-civil-war/521169/61 "2009-12-14T18:13:17Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I’d like for you to explain why a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iraq is “nutjob” talk, but a pre-emptive conventional _invasion_ of Iraq is not. Pre-emptive nuclear strike is quite a bit more nutjobby - the repercussions for the U.S. on an international level would be much more profound. Sufficiently profound as to make it very, very unlikely. An invasion on the other hand, of Iraq in particular, is/was reasonably easy to justify. Shitty justifications, perhaps, but still workable and reasonably sane looking ( the have dangerous weapons! they harbor our enemies! they violate agreements! they oppress their people! etc.). Going nuclear is _Going Nuclear_ - it would take a truly extraordinary provocation ( i.e. a nuclear attack ) to trigger it. To put it in perspective circa, oh, 2006 or thereabouts: 1.) **U.S. Air/Missle Strikes on Iran** - Unlikely, but not at all nutjobby. Could have happened. Would have been _stupid_ IMO, but not outside the realm of possible. 2.) **U.S. Invasion of Iran** - A little nutjobby. Very unlikely, just due to the fact that whatever the administration’s desires the military establishment advising them are mostly not _that_ stupid. The assets needed were tied up, the justifications much thinner even than Iraq, the international support much weaker, the strategic problems much tougher. Would not have happened. 3.) **U.S. Nuclear Strike on Iran** - Pretty darn nutjobby, for all the reasons above. 4.) **Bush Suspends Upcoming U.S. Elections, Declares Some Variety of Martial Law** - Flat-out whackadoo nutjobbery. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impending-us-civil-war/521169/62 "2009-12-14T18:14:12Z")
> [@](#): > > Never considered using nukes that I’m aware of. Wasn’t Bush pushing for the development of nuclear bunker-busters for use in Afghanistan? Never mind that he also declared that anyone trying to develop nuclear weapons was a rogue state. As for a guerrilla-type insurrection against the government, we’ve already seen that several times. The last time it happened, it prompted us to invade Afghanistan and ultimately Iraq, and briefly unified the country and the world around us. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impending-us-civil-war/521169/63 "2009-12-14T18:21:22Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > . . . because the U. S. didn’t use nukes. Never considered using nukes that I’m aware of. Hasn’t used nukes in almost 65 years. Every President in the nuclear era has considered nukes to be on, well, a different plane, if you will, and hasn’t seriously contemplated their use. > > Any of those would do. I dunno: I see references to the Bush Administration seeking development of [nuclear “bunker buster” weapons](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22Robust+Nuclear+Earth+Penetrator%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=)even a couple of years _after_ the initial invasion. ETA: and if you extend “contemplated their use” to active planning by the President’s immediate advisors, I think you’ll find that the administrations of Truman, Eisenhower and possibly Johnson weren’t quite so virginal on this score as you seem to think. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impending-us-civil-war/521169/64 "2009-12-14T18:25:38Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I don’t think the nuclear war thread belongs in the category of left-wing nuttery since it was started based on a news story covered by CNN, not some lefty poster’s fantasy. So CNN would never report on some far left or far night nonsense? Bush was about four blocks right of center for me (I’m military but middle of the road.) But I don’t see for a second he contemplated the use of nukes in Iran. If he was that concerned, why didn’t he just bomb Iran? Oh yeah, that was prediced here too. I must have missed that in the news. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impending-us-civil-war/521169/65 "2009-12-14T18:28:18Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > Once again, I hold that anything resembling a civil war would be an issue contended at the level of states, not individuals, vs. the federal government. And once again, states have armies of their own, and would (hypothetically) have the ability to seize federal military assets within their borders. The American civil war was a regional war where the country was split into camps along largely geographical lines, but that’s not typical for a civil war. While there may be more support for certain factions in certain parts of the country, civil wars usually aren’t so neatly divided. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impending-us-civil-war/521169/66 "2009-12-14T18:31:22Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > I dunno: I see references to the Bush Administration seeking development of [nuclear “bunker buster” weapons](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22Robust+Nuclear+Earth+Penetrator%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=)even a couple of years _after_ the initial invasion. So what? Administrations (in both parties) seek development of lots of things. I 100% guaran-damn-t that there were new nuclear weapons under “development” in the Carter and Clinton administrations too. Don’t remember them nuking anyone either. Hundreds if not thousands of new weapons programs and upgrades to old ones go on within DoD independent of the Administration all the time. Doesn’t mean the President is chomping at the bit to use them. ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impending-us-civil-war/521169/67 "2009-12-14T18:37:59Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > Unfortunately, the search function isn’t showing anything earlier than 2003 right now, or I’d link you to some threads about Bill Clinton declaring martial law. I know I [linked to this](http://www.snopes.com/legal/martial.asp?print=y) in around 2000/2001 (definitely pre GWB) . > [@](#): > > In the box were about a hundred large (about 2’x3’) plastic signs that stated: “This City Under Martial Law” in bright colors. It said something about the federal gov’t and had what looked like a legal reference (the driver claims to know nothing about legal issues, but he thought it was a reference to a law or an Executive Order or something). > > There were several hundred boxes of these signs. The driver doesn’t know what Wal-Mart has to do with the signs. But he DID state that Wal-Mart sometimes hires out space on their trucks if space is available. I might suggest that maybe the federal gov’t was using Wal-Mart trucks to keep a low profile. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impending-us-civil-war/521169/68 "2009-12-14T18:46:30Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Right. > > Now, the U.S. doesn’t take pre-emptive military action against sovereign nations. Never considered doing so prior to 2003 that I’m aware of. Every President since 1776 has considered pre-emptive military action to be on a different plane, if you will, and hasn’t seriously contemplated it. You’re joking, right? > [@](#): > > There are, in total, about half a million National Guardsmen. Barely enough to fight off the Coast Guard. :dubious: Half a million is twice as large as Great Britain’s (for example) active duty armed forces. And for reference, the Coast Guard has 42,000 active duty personnel. (All according to Wikipedia) ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impending-us-civil-war/521169/69 "2009-12-14T18:53:00Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > The American civil war was a regional war where the country was split into camps along largely geographical lines, but that’s not typical for a civil war. > > While there may be more support for certain factions in certain parts of the country, civil wars usually aren’t so neatly divided. Well, as I said, I don’t think any of this is at all likely, but if there _were_ anything resembling a civil war, I think that’s what it would look like. The scenario I described may be atypical compared to other civil conflicts in the world, but the US isn’t your typical country: it comprises fifty entities that are sovereign in their own right, led by relatively independent governors who are also commanders in chief in their own right. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impending-us-civil-war/521169/70 "2009-12-14T19:03:28Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > So CNN would never report on some far left or far night nonsense? They would, but in this case they weren’t. It looked like a hyped up news “flash” because Bush wouldn’t rule out the use of nukes-- which the US never does anyway. Anyway, that’s what I got from actually reading the thread. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impending-us-civil-war/521169/71 "2009-12-14T19:44:44Z")
> [@What\_the](#): > > Did you mean “grow up” or “give up”. I think the latter is what you’d really like. > > Me thinks you’re going to need to remember your own advice over the next few years. :rolleyes: You do understand, don’t you, that movement conservatism is now marginal, and the GOP can come back only by distancing itself from it? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impending-us-civil-war/521169/72 "2009-12-14T19:45:24Z")
Sssshh! Don’t tell them! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impending-us-civil-war/521169/73 "2009-12-14T19:48:23Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The thing really stopping any potential for civil war is that the ideological divisons lack and distinct geographical ones. It’s not the North vs. the South any more, it’s just morons vs. normal people. Everyone’s all mixed together. Judging by [this map,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElectionMapPurpleCounty.jpg) it’s really the cities vs. the countryside. Hard to make a civil war out of that – and, when a civil war does come down to city vs. countryside, somehow the city always seems to win, despite the countryside being the place where everybody’s food comes from. The only exception I can think of is the Paris Commune. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impending-us-civil-war/521169/74 "2009-12-14T19:50:59Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > Once again, I hold that anything resembling a civil war would be an issue contended at the level of states, not individuals, vs. the federal government. And once again, states have armies of their own, and would (hypothetically) have the ability to seize federal military assets within their borders. Maybe states have their own “armies,” but I think you’ll find the average National Guardsman these days is, like the average American these days, more loyal to America as a whole than to his/her particular state. ---
**Author:** ![Two\_Many\_Cats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8dc957/32.png) [@Two\_Many\_Cats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_Many_Cats)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impending-us-civil-war/521169/75 "2009-12-14T20:09:34Z")
There was this sort of revolutionary talk back when Clinton was president. Remember the Michigan militia and all the rest? Ooooh, scaaaarry kids! We’re gonna have us a people’s war against that draft-dodger in Washington! Yessir! Then Timothy McVeigh came along and actually did something warlike, and you didn’t hear a peep out of the militia types. They didn’t run to the battlements. They just ran. And hid. All this blather about militias and such like is just a chance for grown men to run around in the woods with their guns playing soldier, and brag about it in the bars afterwards. Unless of course they’re too fat to run around in the woods. They can still sit on bar stools and talk though. And after the bar closes they can drunkenly blog online until dawn. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impending-us-civil-war/521169/76 "2009-12-14T20:20:59Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > They would, but in this case they weren’t. It looked like a hyped up news “flash” because Bush wouldn’t rule out the use of nukes-- which the US never does anyway. > > Anyway, that’s what I got from actually reading the thread. Well John, if you think the the President seriously considered launching a nuclear strike, I can’t prove a negative. Too me, that though was clearly left wing nutcase. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![dragoncat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6a8cbe/32.png) [@dragoncat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dragoncat)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impending-us-civil-war/521169/77 "2009-12-14T21:27:24Z")
> [@Frostillicus](#): > > Uh, your friend is an idiot. Actually, he isn’t, which is why I was surprised he spread garbage created by conspiracy theorists. But next time we’re all at a party together, I’ll make sure not to introduce you two. I didn’t know EU was a two-month old “newspaper” from Florida, but I certainly was wondering and I’m not surprised it isn’t legit … that’s why in my OP I asked if any _trusted_ sources had shared similar information. Obviously the answer is no. I thought the original articles more a statement on the government than on the likelihood of the people to rise up. Town hall meetings notwithstanding. ---
**Author:** ![R.P.McMurphy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7993a0/32.png) [@R.P.McMurphy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/R.P.McMurphy)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impending-us-civil-war/521169/78 "2009-12-14T21:28:06Z")
I think any President, even if he/she was more than half crazy realizes that detonating a nuclear device on Iran, or anywhere else, would result in condemnation by the rest of the world. Nearly all other countries, probably including Canada, would coalesce to try to isolate the US as much as possible. If you think the US has economic problems now, launching a nuke would seal its economic fate. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impending-us-civil-war/521169/79 "2009-12-14T21:59:32Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > You’re joking, right? Uh… no? Preemptive military action was totally _verboten_ until 2003. Go ahead and point to a pre-emptive US action if you like. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impending-us-civil-war/521169/80 "2009-12-14T22:01:51Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Erm… that’s not a very good example. > > Three months after that OP about a possible pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iraq, we got… a pre-emptive conventional-arms invasion of Iraq. It’s been in the news, apparently. Since I was the one who posted the link, I’ll explain why I thought it was a good example. First, the OP in that post, mentioned something he thought he heard while “half-listening” to CNN. A few posts later he explains that while the story seemed to report that a nuclear strike is always an option, someone was interviewed that insisted a strike was a new option. Secondly, and I think this is important to note, THERE WAS NO PRE-EMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKE ON IRAQ. **Tapioca Dextrin** that’s exactly what I was looking for, but couldn’t find in the search. Thanks! [QUOTE=spifflog] I 100% guaran-damn-t that there were new nuclear weapons under “development” in the Carter and Clinton administrations too. Don’t remember them nuking anyone either. [/QUOTE] Like when Jimmy Carter seemed first to approve, then reject, deployment of the [neutron bomb](http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,916051,00.html). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impending-us-civil-war/521169.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impending-us-civil-war/521169.md?page=5)