# 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:** 11
**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, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/201 "2019-03-04T23:15:31Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Yesterday Dale Sams offered this scenario: > > 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. I don’t consider that a plausible scenario. 😛 For California to secede ‘amicably’, it would have to get congress to pass something discorporating it from the union - there’s no other way to secede amicably in America given its history. If this occurred then that would represent congressional republican support for the separation, and there wouldn’t be any congressional or military support for retaliation. Also, no matter what, no significant number of people are going to be moving to states more their ‘color’ before (or during) the conflict - moving house is a big deal, and nobody’s going to do it on something as uncertain as a revolution that hasn’t occurred yet. What you’ll instead get are the equivalent of Torys - people who are aligned with the side they’re not living in, and who will raise protests and such and be unwilling to support the conflict. On he subject of foreign support, I was talking specifically about humanitarian support for civilians that need it - there would be relatively little foreign military support for either side of the war. Well, unless outside countries decide to start using the conflict as a proxy war. If Russia started sending troops and materiel to the Reds (out of color sympathy, let’s say) then there’s a possibility that some first world countries might provide support to the blue side to balance it. ---
**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 5, 2019, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/202 "2019-03-05T01:18:03Z")
> [@XT](#): > > 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? Well, I have to say that I’m curious about how misleading news like that percolate, A quick search showed me [CNN](https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/14/politics/green-new-deal-proposal-breakdown/index.html) and [BBC](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47394484) talking about that, but mostly to say that indeed, the GND or Ocasio-Cortez is **NOT** planning to take our meat away. They however did mention the ridiculous take Trump and others that did claim with no good basis that meat was being taken away. So, what I think takes place is that [other sources](https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2019/02/08/Here-are-some-of-the-dumbest-right-wing-media-takes-on-the-Green-New-Deal/222814)do influence places like the internet, and then the ridiculous right wing take makes it into the “mainstream”, as in opinion pieces that are less part of the actual news, and on that CNN and even the BBC can run very uninformed articles. (This is me remembering many mainstream news in the past missing items when reporting about climate change issues) Also, it makes it into social media, and there you have then how an item that is not reported properly can influence others to then fall into thinking that ‘there must be something there’ but as the BBC said, one has to ask the right wing and mistake prone mainstream media: “where is the beef?”. ---
**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 5, 2019, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/203 "2019-03-05T01:22:45Z")
Duplicate post. ---
**Author:** ![Dale\_Sams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/779978/32.png) [@Dale\_Sams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dale_Sams)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/204 "2019-03-05T03:30:39Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I don’t consider that a plausible scenario. 😛 > > For California to secede ‘amicably’, it would have to get congress to pass something discorporating it from the union - there’s no other way to secede amicably in America given its history. If this occurred then that would represent congressional republican support for the separation, and there wouldn’t be any congressional or military support for retaliation. > > Also, no matter what, no significant number of people are going to be moving to states more their ‘color’ before (or during) the conflict - moving house is a big deal, and nobody’s going to do it on something as uncertain as a revolution that hasn’t occurred yet. What you’ll instead get are the equivalent of Torys - people who are aligned with the side they’re not living in, and who will raise protests and such and be unwilling to support the conflict. > I’d think like “Warday”…several powers would love to see the USA split up. > On he subject of foreign support, I was talking specifically about humanitarian support for civilians that need it - there would be relatively little foreign military support for either side of the war. > > Well, unless outside countries decide to start using the conflict as a proxy war. If Russia started sending troops and materiel to the Reds (out of color sympathy, let’s say) then there’s a possibility that some first world countries might provide support to the blue side to balance it. I’d think like “Warday”…several powers would love to see the USA split up. Now what that entails in a hot civil war…I don’t know. Its complicated. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/205 "2019-03-05T04:02:35Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I don’t consider that a plausible scenario. 😛 > > For California to secede ‘amicably’, it would have to get congress to pass something discorporating it from the union - there’s no other way to secede amicably in America given its history. If this occurred then that would represent congressional republican support for the separation, and there wouldn’t be any congressional or military support for retaliation. … The posited scenario was not one wherein California legally seceded. It was in which they passed a referendum to secede, could not garner President Trump’s (and presumably not Congress’) support for a legal secession and then “California secedes, Trump declares an emergency and Oregon and Washington secede” which presumably means that they declare themselves an independent nation without the consent of the federal government. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/206 "2019-03-05T10:52:23Z")
> [@bump](#): > > 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) I totally believe that meat being outlawed in the future (and all of us meat eaters being reviled as slave owners are now, or worse) is a distinct possibility. Animal rights movements are gaining ground with each year passing (for instance plenty of very ordinary people now think that there shouldn’t be animals in circuses, or dolphin shows, and even zoos are coming more and more under criticism, and of course look how popular fur is nowadays). Add to that the arguments about growing meat being a waste of ressources and also contributing to climate warming, etc… If on top of it, we manage to produce a meat equivalent in labs, which is also a distinct possibility, all bets are off because it will become more and more difficult to justify killing animals when you could have the equivalent without harming a living creature. So, no, maybe _you_ have no interest in banning meat, but some are very vocal about doing exactly that, and you can’t exclude that there won’t be many more of them in the future. And presumably, they’ll be considered as leftists and progressives. And you and the other steak-eaters as heartless and immoral reactionaries. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/207 "2019-03-05T13:00:31Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I remember when conservatives used to sneer at “moral relativism” as being something that leftist academics dreamed up. Thank god we have someone on the board who will argue that Confederates were not half bad guys for their time, and also imply that they were sorta centrist and/or liberal. Go ahead and check, 'lil Buckaroo, I’ll wait. You won’t find a single instance of me defending the Confederates or their cause. I’m of the opinion that Jeff Davis et. al. should have been hanged following the war. It is becoming increasingly clear that you don’t really know what the term “right wing” means or its history. It is a relative term. If we want to assign left and right to the factions in the American Civil War, it HAS to be in relation to each other. My calling you out on your ignorance does not make me a Confederate sympathizer. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/208 "2019-03-05T14:26:49Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > I totally believe that meat being outlawed in the future (and all of us meat eaters being reviled as slave owners are now, or worse) is a distinct possibility. Animal rights movements are gaining ground with each year passing (for instance plenty of very ordinary people now think that there shouldn’t be animals in circuses, or dolphin shows, and even zoos are coming more and more under criticism, and of course look how popular fur is nowadays). Add to that the arguments about growing meat being a waste of ressources and also contributing to climate warming, etc… > > If on top of it, we manage to produce a meat equivalent in labs, which is also a distinct possibility, all bets are off because it will become more and more difficult to justify killing animals when you could have the equivalent without harming a living creature. > > So, no, maybe _you_ have no interest in banning meat, but some are very vocal about doing exactly that, and you can’t exclude that there won’t be many more of them in the future. And presumably, they’ll be considered as leftists and progressives. And you and the other steak-eaters as heartless and immoral reactionaries. I agree that in some circles, sentiment is turning against meat. But it’s something that’ll be a LONG time in coming, and I have a suspicion that it’ll be something that’s socially unacceptable long before it’s banned outright- we can probably look at smoking as a sort of index phenomenon for how this might go, except that meat eating is FAR more common today than smoking ever was. But as far as the political viability of an outright ban? It’s not even in the same galaxy as a total smoking or tobacco ban, and nobody’s even seriously considering THAT at the moment. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/209 "2019-03-05T14:34:00Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > 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”? Good points. You’ve changed my mind. ---
**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 5, 2019, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/210 "2019-03-05T16:40:03Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well, I have to say that I’m curious about how misleading news like that percolate, A quick search showed me [CNN](https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/14/politics/green-new-deal-proposal-breakdown/index.html) and [BBC](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47394484) talking about that, but mostly to say that indeed, the GND or Ocasio-Cortez is **NOT** planning to take our meat away. They however did mention the ridiculous take Trump and others that did claim with no good basis that meat was being taken away. > > So, what I think takes place is that [other sources](https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2019/02/08/Here-are-some-of-the-dumbest-right-wing-media-takes-on-the-Green-New-Deal/222814)do influence places like the internet, and then the ridiculous right wing take makes it into the “mainstream”, as in opinion pieces that are less part of the actual news, and on that CNN and even the BBC can run very uninformed articles. (This is me remembering many mainstream news in the past missing items when reporting about climate change issues) Also, it makes it into social media, and there you have then how an item that is not reported properly can influence others to then fall into thinking that ‘there must be something there’ but as the BBC said, one has to ask the right wing and mistake prone mainstream media: “where is the beef?”. Well, a couple of things. First off, I use CNN and BBC to read the news…then I form my own opinion. I’m not waiting around for some one to tell me what I should think. Second…well, did you actually click on the links? From your quick search of CNN, it says this: > [@](#): > > Cows and climate change > > “working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible” > > This element has already been boiled down to cow farts, according to the President and that prematurely published set of FAQs. Cow and livestock emissions are something that deserves attention. This is not about your your purebred heritage cow, but rather about industrial agriculture. > > Beef is responsible for 41% of livestock greenhouse gas emissions, and that livestock accounts for 14.5% of total global emissions, according to a CNN special report this year, which also pointed to the UN Panel on Climate Change Report, which suggested changing diets worldwide could contribute 20% of the effort needed to keep down global temperatures. The USDA projects the average American will eat about 222.4 pounds of meat and poultry in 2019, 53.4 pounds of which will be beef. So, again…it’s a question. And she was unclear. This isn’t right wing lies, it’s a woman writing a manifesto who clearly doesn’t understand reality on many of the items being unclear, exactly, what she means by what she is saying. But…if she is, indeed talking about a 10 year time frame, then this bullet point kind of HAS to mean, at a minimum, a drastic reduction in cattle ranching. Again, look at what is IN THE GND IN HER WORDS: “working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible” So…how much is ‘technologically feasible’? This is a broad, far ranging and very complex sector that she has boiled down to a few words. All pollution? And GhG? We aren’t JUST talking about cows here, but that is obviously a major thrust. So, basically what I’ve seen is people of various political stripes trying to interpret this based on their ideology. Ironically, YOU are doing the same fucking thing…and so are many other 'dopers. Conservative 'dopers are, again, doing the SAME FUCKING THING, just from a different viewpoint. Me? I’m on the fence…I don’t know what she meant, but figure it was almost certainly stupid and impossible. As I said in at least one of the threads on this subject, I’m good with it being just something to rile up her base and make the Republicans heads explode, but it’s not something to take seriously, or has anything serious in it. And I think, from that perspective, she probably DID mean a large reduction in Americans eating meat and a very large reduction in US cattle ranching, as well as, probably, going all organic for ‘sustainable farming’ and gods know what else. In any case, this is drifting far away from the OP at this point so I’m going to leave it there. I put my thoughts into several of the GND threads if you want to go take a look (you were in both of them, IIRC). ---
**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 5, 2019, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/211 "2019-03-05T18:20:41Z")
Uh, no, read it again, I was pondering from \*\*where \*\*in the media you pointed at you got the idea that banning meat was in the NGD, reading about the cow farts the GND says that that is not feasible or to deal with it when it is. (BTW as I saw in a very early documentary that mentioned the cow’s farts, that with some diet changes for the cows or doing some engineering one can deal with that issue; ) so again, the simple request was from where on CNN or the BBC you got the bit about: > [@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. So the answer was “No, it is not part of the Green New Deal”. The point stands, and it was not really about how that 2% of the population that would want to ban meat had what it amounts to a hill of pandering beans. The point was about how the talking points from the right do percolate and since you do not want to ponder how you got the wrong impression then I will not force you. The application here in the thread was as a bit of an exploration of how propaganda can influence even centrists and show us the possible steps on how interest groups can lead Americans to blows. ---
**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 5, 2019, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/212 "2019-03-05T19:16:28Z")
Last time then I think I’ve beaten my head against the wall enough. The answer to YOU is ‘no’. To ME it’s ‘I don’t know’. To someone who might be watching Fox it’s ‘cow farts!’. As I’ve not repeatedly said, I’ve read the NGD…lots more than it really deserves…and, to ME, I don’t know exactly what she means, but I can see it either way. You, of course, are reading it through your own filters, along with, undoubtedly, reading the various things she and others have said to back-step or elucidate on her brief blurb wrt this. It’s interesting, to me, that you seem to think about propaganda only as it effects the other side (and presumably me), without apparently grasping that it affects you as well. Anyway, with that I’m done with this. It really has little to do with the OP, which I’ve already answered in any case. I think the video I linked too pretty much gives a good view on how I think things would play out, assuming various initial conditions. Assume others and you get other outcomes. Really, the answers to the OP say more about the poster and their own partisan views or outlook than it does about the OPs question, IMHO. Unlike you, I freely admit that this includes me as well, as I’m filtering the question through my own partisan views and outlook to arrive at the assumptions and initial conditions I find most likely on how the OP would play out. ---
**Author:** ![SmellMyWort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea5d25/32.png) [@SmellMyWort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmellMyWort)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/213 "2019-03-05T19:17:37Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’d love to see a cite from either one of you on this. Here’s what I see (from [the NYT 2016 exit polls](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html)): HRC won voters making less than $50k. DJT won every income category making $50k+. I think the details of how a war would be funded is not exactly that clear cut. While it’s true that Trump voters edged out Clinton voters in the higher income categories, they weren’t by huge margins; only 1-4 points depending on category. It is also true that two lower categories, those who favored Clinton, include the majority of Americans. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/214 "2019-03-05T19:54:34Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Isn’t it part of the Green New Deal to get rid of meat? No, it is to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses created in the creation of our foods. There may be some modifications to husbandry practices, and maybe some elimination of subsidies, but I see nothing at all in the green deal that would say “get rid of meat”. It may end up being more expensive, and there may be less available to consumers due to increases in those prices, but it is only deliberate misunderstanding and fear mongering to say that it “get[s] 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. You are correct that no one is stupid enough to push a ban on all meat, including the people you are accusing of pushing a ban on all meat. > [@](#): > > Basically, a red/blue civil war is unlikely in the extreme. ANY sort of US civil war, at this stage is, IMHO an extremely low probability event, despite what some seem to think. But the OP, like many threads on this board, is basically asking us to suspend our disbelief for a time to answer the theoretical. Personally, as I said, I don’t think a meaningful answer can be made with what’s laid out, as a bunch of assumptions would need to be made to answer the questions asked. What is interesting is seeing the assumptions people are making and what that really says about them. I agree, as we are set up to be able to work out our differences without violence, and so it is only those who do not accept democracy as a ways of resolving out differences that would be going to war. > [@XT](#): > > Again you are assuming that it’s the ‘red’ faction that is in rebellion and the ‘blue’ faction who is the government. Even if that’s the case, I could see instances where you’d have a significant portion of the military splitting in a ‘red’/‘blue’ conflict. Say the ‘blue’ side, in control of the government, decided to do away with the 2nd or 1st Amendments by fiat. Would the military support that, and, more importantly, support being used against the civilian population to suppress it in the event of such a thing? Very unlikely scenario. A scenario that does exist in some fringy right winger’s hopeful imaginations, but not one that actually is realistically connected tot he world in which we actually live. By fiat means that they are entirely ignoring the constitution and all laws. In that case, it’s not a blue v red, it’s just a coup. Now, what may happen is that some mild gun control measure is called by the right to be getting rid of the 2nd amendment, or that some law to prevent another charlottesville or worse is called doing away with the first. they would be nothing of the sort, but I can see your point that the “red” faction may try to go to war over such delibeter mistinerptreations. > [@](#): > > I think that in general it’s impossible to really answer the OP without specifics, and that those who are doing so are making initial assumptions…as did I, when I put in my own thoughts on it (as did the guy in the video I linked too that showed a ‘red’/‘blue’ civil war scenario). > > I also don’t think that "“Blacks” & Hispanics are 40% and I’ll bet they’ll end up support the Blue States at a 99% rate. " is a sure thing either, again depending on what assumptions you make. What if either the ‘red’ or ‘blue’ faction in control of the government decided to create a 1 child policy and force abortion? Is this something that you actually have any belief whatsoever has any chance of happening? It’s not happening, period. May there be some tax changes that encourage fewer children? I can see that, though I would disagree, as I think we need to raise or population, not decrease it. If there is force abortion, then I’m on the other side. But lets look at what actually happens here, with respect to abortion. When the pro-choice element loses, they redouble their efforts at the ballot box, and they increase their efforts to help women in states that restrict their reproductive rights. There is no violence offered. However, when the pro-choice element wins, the pro-life element refuses to recognize that result of democracy, and will threaten and intimidate people who work in clinics, as well as their patrons, as well as sometimes going to the lengths of actually assaulting or killing them. The only way I see the pro-choice movement resorting to violence against the state would be if the states had passed legislation that preventively restricted the movements of pregnant women to prevent them form seeking an abortion out of state. Do you think the res states will go that far? I don’t, but I also do not think that the pro-choice side would institute mandatory abortions. If there is a ban on guns (which I would recommend against, along with most on the left), the right wing fantasy of door to door confisitions is not happening. It will be a ban on sales, as well as a strong suggestion that you turn them in, along with well announced amnesty days at least semi-annually or risk a fine if you happen to be caught with one. We have a ban on drugs, do we do door to door confiscation of them? > [@](#): > > Still going to be at 99%? :dubious: The assumption you are making is that the ‘red’ faction would be rebelling and that whatever issue they are rebelling about wouldn’t appeal to minority service personnel, but that’s an assumption, and I can think of several that could. Also, IMHO, more than 1% would follow the lead of their officers and their service mates in whatever branch we are talking about. I was in the service, and an officer, and if my Captain said we were doing something then I’d take that seriously, especially if the rest of my shipmates though it was a good idea (not that the Captain often consulted us on what we were or weren’t doing :p). So, you would follow his orders whether your captain sided with the govt or the rebels? > [@XT](#): > > No, it doesn’t say it…directly. But I think that it’s debatable exactly what this part means: I don’t see it as debateable, I see it as saying that the emissions from raising cows is extremely harmful to the environment, and it needs to be addressed. Any gnashing of teeth over what it “really means” is motivated reasoning to make it mean something ridiculous against which one can rail. > [@](#): > > 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. If you had heard a speech by Temple Grandin say 30 years ago, and she had said that she wanted to remove as much cruelty and mistreatment from the cattle industry as “technologically feasible”, would you say that she was working toward the elimination of meat? Would you be surprised if that goal was accomplished while actually increasing the availability of meat? > [@](#): > > 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. [/quote] So, some people think that it is ambiguous. She clarifies her meaning. She is called out as a liar for clarifying it in a different manner than people had already chosen to interpret it. [quote] > [@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. No matter how well her manifesto were written, if people are motivated to take straightforward concepts and pretend to be confused about them and make up theirh owninterpretiaons abou thtem, they will do so. There is constructive criticism, where you say something like, “That line there is a bit ambiguous, you should clarify what you mean,” and then there is disingenuous commentary, where one says, “This is what she meant by what she said, and any attempts to clarify will be met with accusations of “walking back” or outright lying.” The former is conducive to participating in a democracy. The latter is conducive for picking fights. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > 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”? Services makes up nearly [$13 trillion of that](https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp), so the disparity on goods is not nearly as big as how you have presented it here. > [@clairobscur](#): > > I totally believe that meat being outlawed in the future (and all of us meat eaters being reviled as slave owners are now, or worse) is a distinct possibility. Animal rights movements are gaining ground with each year passing (for instance plenty of very ordinary people now think that there shouldn’t be animals in circuses, or dolphin shows, and even zoos are coming more and more under criticism, and of course look how popular fur is nowadays). Add to that the arguments about growing meat being a waste of ressources and also contributing to climate warming, etc… Makes sense to end subsidies, and maybe even impose a tax. Let the meat eaters pay for their externalities. I like meat, but I know that the $2.99 I pay for some hamburger beef is not paying for the actual cost and externalities of its production. > [@](#): > > If on top of it, we manage to produce a meat equivalent in labs, which is also a distinct possibility, all bets are off because it will become more and more difficult to justify killing animals when you could have the equivalent without harming a living creature. If lab grown meat is cheaper, then harvesting cows for meat becomes a very niche product, and is not an environmental concern anymore because of its much lower footprint. 3 star restaurants will pay dozens of dollars or more a pound for the highest quality steaks today. In the future, maybe only those highest quality steaks are produced for the wealthy, and all the cheap stuff we eat is made in a lab. Is that dystopian to you? > [@](#): > > So, no, maybe _you_ have no interest in banning meat, but some are very vocal about doing exactly that, and you can’t exclude that there won’t be many more of them in the future. And presumably, they’ll be considered as leftists and progressives. And you and the other steak-eaters as heartless and immoral reactionaries. And that faction will continue to be small and vocal. Oft times, the more vocal a group, the smaller it is. ---
**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 5, 2019, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/215 "2019-03-05T20:05:31Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Last time then I think I’ve beaten my head against the wall enough. The answer to YOU is ‘no’. To ME it’s ‘I don’t know’. To someone who might be watching Fox it’s ‘cow farts!’. As I’ve not repeatedly said, I’ve read the NGD…lots more than it really deserves…and, to ME, I don’t know exactly what she means, but I can see it either way. You, of course, are reading it through your own filters, along with, undoubtedly, reading the various things she and others have said to back-step or elucidate on her brief blurb wrt this. It’s interesting, to me, that you seem to think about propaganda only as it effects the other side (and presumably me), without apparently grasping that it affects you as well. > > Anyway, with that I’m done with this. It really has little to do with the OP, which I’ve already answered in any case. I think the video I linked too pretty much gives a good view on how I think things would play out, assuming various initial conditions. Assume others and you get other outcomes. Really, the answers to the OP say more about the poster and their own partisan views or outlook than it does about the OPs question, IMHO. Unlike you, I freely admit that this includes me as well, as I’m filtering the question through my own partisan views and outlook to arrive at the assumptions and initial conditions I find most likely on how the OP would play out. Nowhere I said that it does not affects me too, so yes, I’m not unusual, and that is why I also consult science too, not just the say so of partizans out there. I end up falling for the advise a Republican and conservative scientist said when confronted by the wild exaggerations and lies that the right was saying about “An Inconvenient Truth”: > [@](#): > > 1. Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”, is not that bad, frankly. > > Yes, there are a couple errors. Yes, in a few cases he focuses on “worst-case scenarios,” rather than communicating the full range of risk. But the fact is that he got the most important points right, and the problems aren’t that serious from the perspective of most scientists who have examined the movie. Tim Lambert collected reactions from a number of scientists about a list of nine alleged errors in the movie, for example. While they didn’t always agree about the status of individual “errors,” there was general agreement that the list was too long. In most cases, it was questionable whether they were really errors at all. > > In the cases where Gore presented “worst-case scenarios” instead of depicting the full range of risk, try to look at it from the perspective of the scientists involved. The vast majority of scientists are saying, “Human-induced climate change is very likely to be a very big problem, and somewhat likely to be a very, very big problem.” Are they supposed to get all worked up when a popularizer like Gore goes around saying it will be a very, very big problem? The reaction of most scientists has been exactly what it should be. “Well, maybe he overstated his case somewhat, but he got the gist right.” > > Now, contrast this with someone like Christopher Monckton \*, who goes about proclaiming that climate change is a “non-problem,” and to support his case he completely misrepresents the scientific literature he cites. Whom do you think scientists are going to want to spend their time criticizing? > > And no, I didn’t vote for Gore. - Or the right wing media and even mainstream that falls for misinformation too. ---
**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 5, 2019, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/216 "2019-03-05T20:06:21Z")
I almost feel bad about hijacking this discussion about meat… > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The posited scenario was not one wherein California legally seceded. It was in which they passed a referendum to secede, could not garner President Trump’s (and presumably not Congress’) support for a legal secession and then “California secedes, Trump declares an emergency and Oregon and Washington secede” which presumably means that they declare themselves an independent nation without the consent of the federal government. I don’t consider this a plausible scenario. There are persons out there who feel that it would be awesome to start a civil war and get some use out of all those guns they have, but I don’t believe that California is run by such people. (Nor Oregon and Washington, for that matter.) About the only way I could see this happening is if the entire rest of the country had gone completely to shit - something on the order of Trump declaring himself God King Emperor and the rest of Congress voting to divest themselves and the judiciary of all powers via amendment. And at that point who knows _what_ the military would think of the state of affairs. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/217 "2019-03-05T20:28:50Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I almost feel bad about hijacking this discussion about meat… > > I don’t consider this a plausible scenario. There are persons out there who feel that it would be awesome to start a civil war and get some use out of all those guns they have, but I don’t believe that California is run by such people. (Nor Oregon and Washington, for that matter.) > > About the only way I could see this happening is if the entire rest of the country had gone completely to shit - something on the order of Trump declaring himself God King Emperor and the rest of Congress voting to divest themselves and the judiciary of all powers via amendment. And at that point who knows _what_ the military would think of the state of affairs. Which part(s) of it do you find implausible? The CalExit secessionist movement? That it would actually win approval? That OR / WA would give a shit about CA? Or are you on-board with all of that and just can’t believe the final step of “California secedes, Trump declares an emergency and Oregon and Washington secede”? ^ ^ \<\<\< BTW, that’s a serious question I’d be interested in hearing your answer to, not just rhetorical. I fully recognize that any scenario that ends with conservatives and liberals killing each other in large numbers is highly unlikely. This one is too, but I don’t see it as any moreso than the others that have been offered. ---
**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 5, 2019, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/218 "2019-03-05T20:38:10Z")
I missed the link to the site from Barry Bickmore, the republican and conservative scientist from BYU. > **[“Why Don’t You Bash Al Gore?”](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/why-dont-you-bash-al-gore/)** > > Since I took the plunge and started publicly criticizing certain climate change contrarians, notably certain Utah politicians and Christopher Monckton, people on the other side of the fence have of… ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/219 "2019-03-05T21:09:51Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I fully recognize that any scenario that ends with conservatives and liberals killing each other in large numbers is highly unlikely. This one is too, but I don’t see it as any moreso than the others that have been offered. See, here’s the thing: We are at war, right now. We are in perpetual conflict and a permanent civil war. You and I have differing views on the direction of this country, and we can’t go both ways, so only one of of gets our way. Every year, we gear up and go to battle once again. Usually some intratribal or even internecine conflict in the spring or early summer, but by fall, we are ready to draw up battle lines and go full tilt. Some years are just skirmishes over some minor territory here or there, but some years is a battle for control over not just the law of the country, but for the soul itself. But, we do this at the ballot box, rather than in the streets. One voter goes in; one vote comes out. And I will fight you tooth and nail, and I will advocate for and vote for representatives and policies that further my agenda, and when I lose a battle, I will redouble my efforts. Defeat does not mean loss, it just means regrouping. When you lose, you are also free to rekindle your ideals and try to get a following. That’s the coolest thing about fighting you at the ballot box, is that we both get to live to fight another day. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/220 "2019-03-05T21:43:13Z")
FWIW, back to the thread topic, IIRC most nukes are in red states (ICBMs in the Dakotas, ballistic-missile subs in Georgia - although some are in Maine, too; B61 bombs in Missouri?) but that the permissive-action links that are meant to prevent against misuse by unauthorized entities might prevent either the red or blue factions from successfully using them against each other in a civil war. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384.md?page=12)