# What advantages would blue America have in a civil war? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 1, 2019, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384 "2019-03-01T16:56:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2019, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/181 "2019-03-04T18:14:20Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Isn’t it part of the Green New Deal to get rid of meat? That takes it out of the fringe, at least wrt exposure, and I’m guessing that it also indicates we are probably talking about more than 2% of the population that would nominally support such a thing. Personally, I don’t think anyone is really stupid enough to push, at this time, a ban on all meat, but it would certainly be a point of serious discord if someone tried to do it by fiat and force people to such a thing. Good thing the GND does not say that; as usual, the right wing media specially, has been pumping the misinformation up. > **[The Potency of Republicans’ Hamburger Lie](https://newrepublic.com/article/153187/potency-republicans-hamburger-lie)** > > The GOP's latest attack against Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal is dishonest. But history shows why it might work. > [@](#): > > Conservatives are starting beef with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez again. Earlier this month, on Showtime’s Desus & Mero talk show, the freshman congresswoman said her plan to fight climate change—the Green New Deal—would require the meat industry to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. “We gotta address factory farming,” she said. “Maybe we shouldn’t be eating a hamburger for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.” > [@](#): > > Ocasio-Cortez’s communications director, Corbin Trent, calls this claim “absurd,” noting that the Green New Deal doesn’t call for banning meat. “We want to restart America’s industrial capacity, revitalize economic growth, and ensure America’s leading in the development of new, bourgeoning green energy industries,” he told me. “That’s what the focus of the Green New Deal is. Not to take way anyone’s right to eat cheeseburgers.” Ocasio-Cortez, speaking to The New Yorker’s David Remnick last week, argued that “it’s hard for the Republicans to refute the actual policy on its substance. They resort to mythologizing it on a ludicrous level.” The meta point here is that it is clear that lies like that will be used a lot to convince many in a war, as pointed, the problem is that in war lies do tend to be found to be harmful sooner rather than later. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2019, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/182 "2019-03-04T18:21:59Z")
> [@lokij](#): > > . . .[intriguing possible future ‘history’ snipped] . . . > > In an absolutely key move, the majority of the joint chiefs of staff make it known they’re taking orders from the president-elect and that the regular armed forces will be at the president-elect’s disposal. Now… how do you see the red states winning that one? I think you employed the wrong article. It’s not “AN absolutely key move”, it’s THE absolutely key move. Everything would depend on what the military does (or doesn’t do). I am not quite as sanguine as you (with sanguine and its root being ironically appropriate here). ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2019, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/183 "2019-03-04T18:27:53Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Since others decided that the Confederacy was rightist … Peeling off this issue to [here.](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=21518996#post21518996) ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2019, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/184 "2019-03-04T18:41:14Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [Snip]Another clear bit of misleading info you fell for was also that about coal, even conservatives from Reason Magazine saw that coal was done not by environmentalist concerns, but by basic economics. Out of curiosity, what exactly are you saying I fell for? You seem to have an incorrect belief that I’ve been reading American far-right commentary on the Green New Deal, believing it, and using that commentary as a basis for a left-wing dystopia. I read two UK-based articles on the Green New Deal, read the first page of the resolution and skimmed most of the rest, and read some of the commentary here. For what it’s worth, I thought it was big sky thinking, agreed with some of it, disagreed with some of it, and thought it was covering way too much to be a realistic start to legislation, but that really didn’t matter because it was only a resolution. And as far as coal goes, is anyone seriously disputing that a far left American government would shut down the coal industry? > [@](#): > > Well, in a way you answered that too, most of the Reds will clearly fall for off the wall propaganda talking points, and in a war I can foresee the reds ramp up the use of coal to keep tings going. > > And with that I can, putting aside how we got there, speculate on how the Red group can fall: > > Warfare is bound to make the Red group ramp up coal use based on purely misguided ideological and ignorant reasons. That is bound to make things worse for the heath and the environment of the Red areas. Ideological motivation can misguide you big because thanks to the ideological blinders and ignorance, they will be willing to turn their regions into Isengard or Mordor as Tolkien described. Add then to that situation the rest of the world also having yet another reason to support the Blues as the increase in carbon dumping into the atmosphere will be seen as an asshole move and the blue coastal areas that will not be amused to see their land go under water thanks to ocean rise, so, even more incentive for the Blue side to fight on and the Red areas next to the sea losing territory to the ocean will also have a hard time when the people there see their new rulers continuing with their King Canute act. Interesting counter-theory. I like the Tolkien reference. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2019, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/185 "2019-03-04T18:50:09Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > Out of curiosity, what exactly are you saying I fell for? You seem to have an incorrect belief that I’ve been reading American far-right commentary on the Green New Deal, believing it, and using that commentary as a basis for a left-wing dystopia. I read two UK-based articles on the Green New Deal, read the first page of the resolution and skimmed most of the rest, and read some of the commentary here. For what it’s worth, I thought it was big sky thinking, agreed with some of it, disagreed with some of it, and thought it was covering way too much to be a realistic start to legislation, but that really didn’t matter because it was only a resolution. > > And as far as coal goes, is anyone seriously disputing that a far left American government would shut down the coal industry? As it turns out in the real world, market forces did that. For the world building I’m talking about I follow what Trump and others are doing: not using the market and making command economy moves to increase the coal use, that is already a very asshole move. The problem I see here is that you can not let go of some not quite accurate assumptions. Not good for creating a fictional or real world. > [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > Interesting counter-theory. I like the Tolkien reference. Thanks. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2019, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/186 "2019-03-04T19:08:38Z")
> [@XT](#): > > I think it was a reference to leftists in China and Russia bringing about starvation. Since others decided that the Confederacy was rightist and associated conservatives with slavery, it seems apt…if we are going to just strawman and attempt to paint with broad brushes that have little to do with today it makes sense. And since that is what everyone is doing, might as well get some licks in… Let me know then Democratic senators are displaying the Chinese flag in their office and protesting the removal of statues of Lenin from public places. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2019, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/187 "2019-03-04T19:16:23Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Good thing the GND does not say that; as usual, the right wing media specially, has been pumping the misinformation up. > > [The Potency of Republicans’ Hamburger Lie | The New Republic](https://newrepublic.com/article/153187/potency-republicans-hamburger-lie) > > The meta point here is that it is clear that lies like that will be used a lot to convince many in a war, as pointed, the problem is that in war lies do tend to be found to be harmful sooner rather than later. No, it doesn’t say it…directly. But I think that it’s debatable exactly what this part means: > [@](#): > > (G) working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible, including— > > (i) by supporting family farming; > > (ii) by investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health; and > > (iii) by building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food; Certainly there are some groups other than right winger types who think she meant meat (not ‘hamburgers’) when she was talking about ‘remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible’, as well as ‘by building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food’, so you can’t say it’s JUST them who think she meant more than you seem to think she did. Personally, I’ve already given my thoughts on her crazy plan, and if it’s meant to just shake people up, make Republican heads explode and not be taken seriously, I think it does all that. But I also think that it’s more than 2% of the population, which was my point. > [@](#): > > The meta point here is that it is clear that lies like that will be used a lot to convince many in a war, as pointed, the problem is that in war lies do tend to be found to be harmful sooner rather than later. I think the meta point is that ‘lie’ in this context is in the eye of the beholder, and the fact that she has come out and said she isn’t, in fact, going after ‘hamburgers’ doesn’t make it a lie, as she has back tracked on some other aspects of the NGD. I think the meta point is that both sides do stuff that could, potentially, lead to a war, at least in theory, and it’s an assumption who will be the ones who will be the ‘rebels’ and who will be ‘the government’…and how much support either side gets is going to hinge on what the actual issue is. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2019, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/188 "2019-03-04T19:34:41Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Let me know then Democratic senators are displaying the Chinese flag in their office and protesting the removal of statues of Lenin from public places. Well, I could show you Democratic senators in the past displaying CONFEDERATE flags. As for Chinese flags, that’s a bit of a ridiculous request. Would you like to see a list of Senators of either strip that have sympathies towards or have gotten money or other incentives from the CCP? Because that I could do. I’m unsure what it would prove, however, wrt the discussion. I’m pretty sure the poster in question was referring to the various starvation events that have happened (and are happening even as we speak in, oh, say Venezuela) as leftist, and they are, at least as much as the Confederacy is ‘right wing’. It’s an inconvenient fact that both left and right wing organizations in the past and up to today do bad shit, and when folks want to start pointing fingers there are ready examples of extreme stuff that can be pointed to. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2019, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/189 "2019-03-04T19:45:44Z")
> [@XT](#): > > No, it doesn’t say it…directly. But I think that it’s debatable exactly what this part means: > > Certainly there are some groups other than right winger types who think she meant meat (not ‘hamburgers’) when she was talking about ‘remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible’, as well as ‘by building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food’, so you can’t say it’s JUST them who think she meant more than you seem to think she did. Personally, I’ve already given my thoughts on her crazy plan, and if it’s meant to just shake people up, make Republican heads explode and not be taken seriously, I think it does all that. But I also think that it’s more than 2% of the population, which was my point. Yes, debatable but still wrong. The right wing right now reporting it as if it is absolutely about banning meat. > [@XT](#): > > I think the meta point is that ‘lie’ in this context is in the eye of the beholder, and the fact that she has come out and said she isn’t, in fact, going after ‘hamburgers’ doesn’t make it a lie, as she has back tracked on some other aspects of the NGD. Even there the reports I have seen from right wing news and sites are grossly misrepresenting what Ocasio Cortez said. > [@XT](#): > > I think the meta point is that both sides do stuff that could, potentially, lead to a war, at least in theory, and it’s an assumption who will be the ones who will be the ‘rebels’ and who will be ‘the government’…and how much support either side gets is going to hinge on what the actual issue is. And one of the issues I do think is important is that propaganda will be a big factor. Being aware of it is an important part of avoiding disaster. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2019, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/190 "2019-03-04T19:49:31Z")
I’m not right wing (except maybe to you and some on this board) and I’m unclear what exactly she meant in a lot of her NGD. I’ve read it several times, debated it in several threads, seen her follow ups and back steps and still not sure. I know what she SAYS she actually meant, but that takes me believing that it’s true, and I am not sure. It’s not a ‘lie’, and no amount of trying to paint me as a right winger is going to make it one at this point. If she wanted to be clear she should have written her manifesto better, with less room for dispute. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2019, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/191 "2019-03-04T20:08:14Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > As for doing my homework, here’s my list of a far left agenda: > • shutting down the coal industry > • outlawing hate speech > • increasing social and welfare spending > • outlaw meat > • implement draconian gun controls > • divert spending on the military > • institute high carbon taxes > • Universal Basic Income > • free Internet > • ‘social progress officers’ Here’s the thing though; those are all things that various entities on the far left espouse, but it’s far from a unified agenda. Similarly, any “far right” agenda that anyone cares to name is going to be similarly fragmented- just because someone’s a fervent anti-abortionist, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re also rabidly pro-gun, or that someone who’s very libertarian and personal-choice oriented is going to be pro-life (probably not, in fact). I mean, I’m probably what today’s Republican party would call a leftist (despite being probably just right of what used to be the center), and I’m only for maybe two things on that “agenda” you post- shutting down the coal industry and high carbon taxes. The rest are mostly ideas that are either not the human rights people claim they are (free internet), or they’re things that would be disastrous if actually implemented (UBI, outlawing hate speech, draconian gun controls). Or they’re just absurd and nobody really takes them seriously except for frothing types at either side of the political spectrum, (does anyone really, seriously believe that we’d outlaw meat? Of course not) ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2019, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/192 "2019-03-04T20:20:31Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Well, I could show you Democratic senators in the past displaying CONFEDERATE flags. As for Chinese flags, that’s a bit of a ridiculous request. Would you like to see a list of Senators of either strip that have sympathies towards or have gotten money or other incentives from the CCP? Because that I could do. My point was that the Confederacy is currently being actively and publicly embraced by substantial portions of the American right, while there is nothing remotely similar happening on the American left. The closest I could think of would be Che Guevara, and he’s pretty much out of fashion by now. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2019, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/193 "2019-03-04T20:31:47Z")
Nm ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2019, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/194 "2019-03-04T20:47:57Z")
> [@XT](#): > > I’m not right wing (except maybe to you and some on this board) and I’m unclear what exactly she meant in a lot of her NGD. I’ve read it several times, debated it in several threads, seen her follow ups and back steps and still not sure. I know what she SAYS she actually meant, but that takes me believing that it’s true, and I am not sure. It’s not a ‘lie’, and no amount of trying to paint me as a right winger is going to make it one at this point. If she wanted to be clear she should have written her manifesto better, with less room for dispute. Ah, I see you are missing the point, and showing what I was getting to also: one issue I refer to is the propaganda, and I do think that it is designed to also get fence sitters or centrists confused, with the eventual result to turn them to follow the designs of the Red side in a war situation. Of course I expect the Blue side to do the same in favor of their side, but as in the old civil war, one side was doing the right thing. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2019, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/195 "2019-03-04T22:03:47Z")
I’m not an armchair general, more like a lounge chair general, but I would think controlling coastal ports alone would be almost definitive. Of course a lone charismatic red-minded admiral could fuck everything up. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2019, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/196 "2019-03-04T22:12:53Z")
> [@KidCharlemagne](#): > > I’m not an armchair general, more like a lounge chair general, but I would think controlling coastal ports alone would be almost definitive. Of course a lone charismatic red-minded admiral could fuck everything up. Why do you think that? Setting aside, for a moment, that there are ports in areas likely to be under / fall quickly into red control, the US’s GDP is ~$20T. [We import ~$2T in goods](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_United_States) (and a significant portion of that comes from Canada / Mexico which seems less likely to be disrupted by control of the ports). Why would controlling ports be “almost definitive”? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2019, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/197 "2019-03-04T22:16:01Z")
> [@Kearsen1](#): > > Isn’t it funny that your response is “someone else will save us” whether talking about this issue or if you ever had a situation where you needed to defend yourself? I was more saying “the rest of the world exists, they’re nigh-certain to support the blue side in virtually every conceivable conflict, and they’re likely to offer some form of support if things get dire in some way that imperils the noncombatants.” As for the weirdness where you seem to be clumsily trying to make things personal, that’s clumsy and weird. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2019, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/198 "2019-03-04T22:28:19Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > My point was that the Confederacy is currently being actively and publicly embraced by substantial portions of the American right, while there is nothing remotely similar happening on the American left. The closest I could think of would be Che Guevara, and he’s pretty much out of fashion by now. I assume you mean that it’s not a strawman when it’s the assertion that the ‘American right’ embraces the Confederacy, but it is one on the other side because the American left doesn’t embrace Stalin or Mao? Is that your point? Because that wasn’t my point. I suppose that the use of the term strawman might have been off, but I think that both sides try and tar and feather the other with bad things that their ‘side’ has done or is doing currently. This tactic has and is used all the time, on this board and off. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2019, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/199 "2019-03-04T22:36:25Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Ah, I see you are missing the point, and showing what I was getting to also: one issue I refer to is the propaganda, and I do think that it is designed to also get fence sitters or centrists confused, with the eventual result to turn them to follow the designs of the Red side in a war situation. > > Of course I expect the Blue side to do the same in favor of their side, but as in the old civil war, one side was doing the right thing. Well, I’m still missing it. Are you speaking broadly of (presumably right wing) propaganda, or about the NGD that I’m some how being confused by all the right wingers I’ve seen posting on this board in the debates I’ve participated in about the NGD? Or about my own reading of the text of the thing? Somehow right wingers are infiltrating the few sources of news I read (CNN and the BBC) to confuse and befuddle me into not grasping what she actually meant? I was in threads on this board where left leaning posters made the case that it was all just bullshit that was there to spark talk, get folks to think and explode Republican heads, not a serious proposal. The meat thing, in the context of the rest of the craziness is minor, IMHO…and it might or might not be there. I haven’t looked deeply into the authors beliefs or view point wrt eating meat, veganism. I know that a lot of environmentalists do think that the meat industry contributes a lot towards global warming, and it’s a major issue, so doesn’t seem that far fetched in such a manifesto that it might be a point raised. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2019, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/200 "2019-03-04T22:59:02Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I was more saying “the rest of the world exists, they’re nigh-certain to support the blue side in virtually every conceivable conflict, and they’re likely to offer some form of support if things get dire in some way that imperils the noncombatants.” … Yesterday Dale Sams offered this scenario: > [@Dale\_Sams](#): > > Jesus this thread… > > Ok, let’s set up a probably shit but semi-realistic scenario. California creates a referendum to secede. It didn’t come out of nowhere, it took months to implement and give people time to think. It passed. Let’s liken it to Brexit. California tries to make it as amicable as possible and comes up with all kinds of proposals for trade and customs etc…Trump has none of it. Says he won’t recognize Californiaexit and that if its actually implemented he will declare an emergency and ‘do everything in his power to prevent it.’ Oregon and Washington say they will secede if Trump wont recognize Californias right to form its own country. Now during this whole time you’re gonna have a lot of people moving. Reds moving out, blues moving in possibly. So its not like magically Civil War has been declared. California secedes, Trump declares an emergency and Oregon and Washington secede. > > Colorado, NY and the New England states say they will not raise their hands against their former American brothers. Their governors say “you can piss off Trump, if you think you’re gonna mobilize their national guards.” Not wanting anymore fracturing, Trump goes with what he has outside of those states. > > There. Theres your scenario. Run with it. Both sides have nukes. Both sides have fleets. Not that I’m entirely sure the military will support either side. I don’t even have any confidence in the seceding states having the balls to seize a federal military base. I think everyone is just gonna be shitting their pants. The scenario seems on par with the probability of any other scenario offered thus far. After all, there actually was a Calexit movement, convincing enough to even dupe one of our own Dopers into donating to the cause. Do you think the rest of the world is “nigh-certain to support the blue side” in that scenario? It seems unlikely to me, and anyways, a long LONG ways off from a certainty. I suspect the world’s support to be split, and quite limited. I doubt much of anybody would send many of their own forces to intervene. A few enterprising nations may be willing to supply one side or the other with weapons and other equipment. Most would send nothing more than thoughts and prayers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384.md?page=11)