# 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:** 5
**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 1, 2019, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/81 "2019-03-01T23:02:14Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > Trump having the ‘nuclear codes’ never worried me too much. It’s him having command of the army that’s terrifying. Trump can get up to a lot more mischief with the army than he already has, but I don’t think he can pull off ordering them to militarily attack american cities. (I could be wrong about that, but if so I’d rather not find out.) ---
**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 1, 2019, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/82 "2019-03-01T23:12:59Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Trump can get up to a lot more mischief with the army than he already has, but I don’t think he can pull off ordering them to militarily attack american cities. (I could be wrong about that, but if so I’d rather not find out.) Polls show that officers in the military support Trump much more than do the enlisted ranks. And I believe it’s a majority within the officers, so I take some comfort in that. ---
**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 1, 2019, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/83 "2019-03-01T23:17:21Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > Trump having the ‘nuclear codes’ never worried me too much. It’s him having command of the army that’s terrifying. You should worry much more about the nukes. It only takes the cooperation of a few people to unleash weapons that can kill many millions. Whereas getting the Army to crack down on part of the civilian populace would require the cooperation of many thousands in the Army, with a lower death toll. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2019, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/84 "2019-03-01T23:26:47Z")
Neither red nor blue will come out of it feeling like their faction won. The only winners will be the loonies from both sides who always wanted to kill their political opponents. Everybody else will be left with a nation in shambles. ---
**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 1, 2019, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/85 "2019-03-01T23:31:14Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > My main assumption is that if there were some major instigating reason that we were supposed to know about for this war, the OP would have mentioned it. It makes a LOT of difference. Absent such parameters, the only scenario that makes a lick of sense is that the US government be against the group that has rebelled and started seizing territory. Which I don’t believe will be the urbanites. And unless there’s some substantive _reason_ that the Red suddenly decided to start slaughtering innocent women and children, I don’t think even the most conservative arms of the military will jump in and help them do it. > > For me to believe that the military has fractured I’d have to first assume that the US government has collapsed. Not come under control of traitors and Russians - _collapsed_. Quickest way for that to happen would be a military coup - but that wouldn’t be a war between urban and rural, that would be everybody ducking and running as the military tears itself and the country apart. Possibly you could have a political coup, such that there’s no clear uncontested leader, but I’m really not seeing how the US government is susceptible to that. If Trump refuses to leave the white house somebody’ll just go in and drag him out - I don’t seriously believe that even the Republican congressmen would refuse to accept an elected replacement. No, for the military to be fractured you simply would have to have people in the military who have sympathies to both sides. The US government didn’t collapse in the last civil war, and it’s unclear why this would be required in some theoretical future civil war, especially one that breaks down along ‘red’/‘blue’ lines. It’s also, unclear and an assumption on your part that the government would be against the ‘red’ side and on the ‘blue’ side. Until recently, the government was, arguably, almost entirely controlled by the ‘red’ side, and even today you could make a case that the government controls 2 out of the 3 major branches, and the one it doesn’t is pretty much a toss up. So…it would depend on what the issue was that drove the civil war. That’s why I was pointing out you are making assumptions. The OP merely is positing a ‘red’/‘blue’ split, so no assumption about the stance of the government can be inferred. > [@](#): > > On the subject of “what if there’s no military”, I think the biggest advantage the blue side would have would be foreign support. Their positions on the coasts make receipt of supplies, materiel, and foreign troops easy. Sure a large number of landlocked cities would be essentially boned - even if they weren’t overrun, cutting them off from food and power would screw them over. But that would just cement worldwide support on the side of the liberals. > > Oh, and it’s also worth noting that the rural side is really, really, _really_ spread out. This is useful if they’re running a defensive war, or a guerrilla war, but it’s lousy if you’re trying to bring together an army. Any assault against any major city would be horribly outnumbered - probably even if you only count the persons in the city who are armed and willing to fight. > > (Note that I’m making certain assumptions about how much territory we’re letting Blue start with. If we assume that they only get to start with just the downtown areas of cities then they’re automatically boned.) Again, this is fraught with assumptions. The main one being that the government is on the side of the ‘blue’ faction from the beginning, and the rebellion or whatever is by the ‘red’ faction. Because if you shift things a bit, and assume the opposite, then the same forces you are positing for your ‘blue’ advantages would go to the ‘red’ side instead, as THEY would be the government. Really, whoever controls the military is going to be the ones in the drivers seat, wrt any of these factors, including foreign aid or the lack there of. As for the rural/urban divide, you are right…population concentration is in the cities, and many if not most of US cities would be in the ‘blue’ faction. However, again what you state here has assumptions…the biggest one being that the ‘blue’ side would be perfectly organized and able to strike out at the ‘red’ sides areas quickly, to take control of those rural areas where the food is. Further, they would have to do the same wrt power and logistics…and they would have to do so quickly. They would have to organize quickly, strike quickly and widely disparate targets from their isolated positions of concentration and act in some sort of unison to secure what they would need. While the more realistic view is neither side would be very organized in the beginning and control of the rural areas would be a pretty big advantage early on, and would give the ‘red’ side time TOO consolidate and the means to do so, while the ‘blue’ side would have serious issues early on, even in places where they have more concentration (such as California). I don’t think this is realistic, or how things would play out, personally, but I acknowledge that MMV. ---
**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 1, 2019, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/86 "2019-03-01T23:32:01Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > You should worry much more about the nukes. It only takes the cooperation of a few people to unleash weapons that can kill many millions. Whereas getting the Army to crack down on part of the civilian populace would require the cooperation of many thousands in the Army, with a lower death toll. Yes, but I still think it’s MUCH more likely that the US military is used to suppress the opposition than are nukes. ---
**Author:** ![Kropotkin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kropotkin/32/18045_2.png) [@Kropotkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kropotkin)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2019, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/87 "2019-03-01T23:36:00Z")
Strasser: Are you one of those people who cannot imagine the Germans in their beloved Paris? Rick: It’s not particularly my beloved Paris. Heinz: Can you imagine us in London? Rick: When you get there, ask me! Renault: Hmmh! Diplomatist! Strasser: How about New York? Rick: Well, there are certain sections of New York, Major, that I wouldn’t advise you to try to invade. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2019, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/88 "2019-03-01T23:36:21Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I can’t parse this. That’s no surprise. > [@](#): > > Wait - are you proposing that Trump has over 50% support in this country? Reread the quote you are responding to. > [@begbert2](#): > > Come back, bring substantive response. I gave _reasons_ I think the US military would elect not to start randomly shooting urbanites - if you’re going to open your gob respond to _them!_ Do you seriously think the yuppies on 5th avenue will gear up and head for Alabama? Do you seriously think that the US miliary is manned by worthless honorless traitors who would betray their oaths the minute Infowars tells them to? What? > > I’m okay with structuring this discussion in a universe where the military has simply ceased to exist, so we can discuss what happens when the sparse and widely distributed population of the countryside tries to drive into he city and wipe them all out with handheld weaponry. But I’m not going to play a game where the US government loses control of a significant part of its military and lets them walk off with their materiel. Might as well assume that both sides start off by launching nukes at each other. Or dragons! Maybe one side has dragons helping it! Like the US hasn’t lost control of a substantial portion of its military once before in this very universe. Google American civil war. Furthermore, other nations have lost control of substantial portions of their militaries during their civil wars. No dragons or beholders involved. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2019, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/89 "2019-03-01T23:43:35Z")
The premise is ridiculous at the start." Blue vs red? What does that mean anyway? Most states are various shades of purple, even the urban and rural areas. To think that any cohesive tactics would be organized by “rural” folks going after “urban” or vice versa people is simply laughable. Shut off the power for a few days in the summer, or kill the heat during the winter and you have a subdued population waiting to die. Resistance would end quickly especially after the shelves go empty at the store. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2019, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/90 "2019-03-01T23:45:37Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > If the rural areas were to try and starve out the urbans (which I’ll frankly say I think is their most basic and obvious tactic), I suspect that various European countries (and ones with European queens ;)) would offer to ship in food. Perhaps even for free! > > Also you might see air drops a la East Berlin to notable besieged cities, if it came to that. (Presuming that Blue didn’t have wherewithal to manage that themselves.) My vague impression is that western Europe doesn’t have much in the way of strategic airlift capabilities. A bit of quick checking around shows that between [the UK, Germany, France, and Spain, they have 63 Airbus A400M’s delivered as of a month ago](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M_Atlas#Operators). [The UK, Australia, and Canada also have 21 C-17s between them](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III#Operators). That’s okay, I guess, but rather paltry compared to the 222 C-17s and 56 C-5s the USAF has today. They’d probably do better with sealift, but that’s obviously a lot slower. ---
**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 2, 2019, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/91 "2019-03-02T00:04:38Z")
> [@XT](#): > > No, for the military to be fractured you simply would have to have people in the military who have sympathies to both sides. The US government didn’t collapse in the last civil war, and it’s unclear why this would be required in some theoretical future civil war, especially one that breaks down along ‘red’/‘blue’ lines. It’s also, unclear and an assumption on your part that the government would be against the ‘red’ side and on the ‘blue’ side. Until recently, the government was, arguably, almost entirely controlled by the ‘red’ side, and even today you could make a case that the government controls 2 out of the 3 major branches, and the one it doesn’t is pretty much a toss up. So…it would depend on what the issue was that drove the civil war. That’s why I was pointing out you are making assumptions. The OP merely is positing a ‘red’/‘blue’ split, so no assumption about the stance of the government can be inferred. I’m no history expert, but I suspect that the army at the time was much more regional. I don’t think that’s the case today - I think the army is much more homogenous. And it would _entirely_ depend on what the driving issue was. At the moment to my observation there are literally zero urbanites that want to go to literal war with the rural areas - most urbanites are barely aware rural people _exist_. (Which is a big part of why rural areas have been decaying to the point they have and why rural people are so pissed at urbanites.) So given the complete and total absence of some proposed realistic reason why Blue would attack Red, I have no choice but to assume that the rural folks started it. They’re the ones who _talk_ about starting it, after all - in their sublime confidence that they’ll win, because they have all the guns and the police and military won’t mind them murdering people because all conservatives are friends. Now, if you wanted to propose some _reason_ why Blue would be drafting troops and sending them off to start an unprovoked fight, we could perhaps frame the argument in those terms - but it’d have to be a damn good reason, because urbanizes have Netflix and thus better things to do. Rural might hate urban, but the only Reds that urban cares about are the ones with _power_. It’s absurd to think they’ll attack the sparsely populated countryside. Which means that Red started it. Now, let’s look at Red’s reasons for starting the fight. Specifically, let’s look at how none of these reasons are particularly new - and none of them have inspired the military to go rogue and attack cities. So unless we come up with a good reason for Red to start this fight, a really _good_ reason, then the military won’t defect to help them. Being vaguely on the other side of the political color wheel won’t cut it - unless our brave men and women in uniform are way more dishonorable than I think they are. So yeah. Without some excellent reason to fight Blue won’t fight at all, and without an excellent reason on their side Red won’t get the support of the military for their insurrection. To date there are no excellent reasons for anybody to fight, so I have no choice to believe that the military is either on Blue’s (the US’s) side, or completely absent. > [@XT](#): > > Again, this is fraught with assumptions. The main one being that the government is on the side of the ‘blue’ faction from the beginning, and the rebellion or whatever is by the ‘red’ faction. Because if you shift things a bit, and assume the opposite, then the same forces you are positing for your ‘blue’ advantages would go to the ‘red’ side instead, as THEY would be the government. Really, whoever controls the military is going to be the ones in the drivers seat, wrt any of these factors, including foreign aid or the lack there of. > > As for the rural/urban divide, you are right…population concentration is in the cities, and many if not most of US cities would be in the ‘blue’ faction. However, again what you state here has assumptions…the biggest one being that the ‘blue’ side would be perfectly organized and able to strike out at the ‘red’ sides areas quickly, to take control of those rural areas where the food is. Further, they would have to do the same wrt power and logistics…and they would have to do so quickly. They would have to organize quickly, strike quickly and widely disparate targets from their isolated positions of concentration and act in some sort of unison to secure what they would need. While the more realistic view is neither side would be very organized in the beginning and control of the rural areas would be a pretty big advantage early on, and would give the ‘red’ side time TOO consolidate and the means to do so, while the ‘blue’ side would have serious issues early on, even in places where they have more concentration (such as California). I don’t think this is realistic, or how things would play out, personally, but I acknowledge that MMV. Actually I assume that this whole hypothetical is stupid and that Blue will be caught completely with their pants down when Red attacks…and will win the first fights anyway, because the surprised police force of the cities will still be sufficient to fend off the small (and insane) rural attacking force. I don’t assume that Blue will respond rapidly because they won’t believe it because it’s all so completely insane. But Blue will get rapid government support and the fight will be over - or the government will have been captured by aliens and they’ll get slightly less rapid but still sufficient shipments of food from foreign sources anyway. Food isn’t the issue. Until the fighting gets pitched and the Blues napalm the farms or something - it’s not like they’re hidden or protected. Then things’ll get interesting…for the Reds. Eventually. When the fight somehow drags on for so long that they’d have wanted to harvest again or whatever, which I think is extremely unlikely. ---
**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 2, 2019, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/92 "2019-03-02T00:16:11Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > That’s no surprise. True - it was gibbering nonsense. No intelligent person could parse it. > [@octopus](#): > > Reread the quote you are responding to. You asked how we could possibly have a democratic government in power that dislikes liberals if the population of anti-liberals doesn’t outnumber the liberals. There are two ways to parse this. 1. You are asking how Trump could be elected if \<50% of people support him - that is, you’re saying that over half the country _does_ support him. This betrays massive ignorance of things like the electoral college and gerrymandering and such - and also of Trump’s current and past poll ratings. 2. You’re proposing it’s impossible for a separate conservative insurrection to occur and form a government if it’s not composed of at least half the population of the united states. This is of course silly - a group of ten people could ‘secede’ and declare that they’re a government. Arguably if the conservatives did have half the country it would be stupid of them to rebel - they could just win every election ever if they were so numerous and also so passionate as to consider rebellion a viable option. But conservatives aren’t that populous. That’s why they keep talking about fighting - there’s too few of them to get their way via conventional means. > [@octopus](#): > > Like the US hasn’t lost control of a substantial portion of its military once before in this very universe. Google American civil war. Furthermore, other nations have lost control of substantial portions of their militaries during their civil wars. No dragons or beholders involved. Like things weren’t different in the 1800s. Furthermore, I don’t think that the Red can muster up enough of an army for anyone who’s _not_ insane to take them seriously. Seriously, what is supposed to have _started_ this war? Because without that all we have to go on is…butt-hurt conservative crazies who want to shoot people for fun. There aren’t enough of those in the entire country to make the US Military _blink_. ---
**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 2, 2019, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/93 "2019-03-02T00:19:04Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > My vague impression is that western Europe doesn’t have much in the way of strategic airlift capabilities. A bit of quick checking around shows that between [the UK, Germany, France, and Spain, they have 63 Airbus A400M’s delivered as of a month ago](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M_Atlas#Operators). [The UK, Australia, and Canada also have 21 C-17s between them](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III#Operators). That’s okay, I guess, but rather paltry compared to the 222 C-17s and 56 C-5s the USAF has today. > > They’d probably do better with sealift, but that’s obviously a lot slower. I suspect that if things got tight, the average coastal city could hunker down and ration for a week before relief arrives. Inland cities might be boned, but that won’t win Red the war - it’ll just cement them as a country (or, “country”) that few first world countries will want to do business with. ---
**Author:** ![Chingon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chingon/32/17645_2.png) [@Chingon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chingon)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2019, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/94 "2019-03-02T00:22:20Z")
These threads are always right-winger Viagra. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2019, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/95 "2019-03-02T00:27:35Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > True - it was gibbering nonsense. No intelligent person could parse it. > > You asked how we could possibly have a democratic government in power that dislikes liberals if the population of anti-liberals doesn’t outnumber the liberals. > > There are two ways to parse this. > > 1. You are asking how Trump could be elected if \<50% of people support him - that is, you’re saying that over half the country _does_ support him. This betrays massive ignorance of things like the electoral college and gerrymandering and such - and also of Trump’s current and past poll ratings. > > 2. You’re proposing it’s impossible for a separate conservative insurrection to occur and form a government if it’s not composed of at least half the population of the united states. This is of course silly - a group of ten people could ‘secede’ and declare that they’re a government. Arguably if the conservatives did have half the country it would be stupid of them to rebel - they could just win every election ever if they were so numerous and also so passionate as to consider rebellion a viable option. > > But conservatives aren’t that populous. That’s why they keep talking about fighting - there’s too few of them to get their way via conventional means. > > Like things weren’t different in the 1800s. Furthermore, I don’t think that the Red can muster up enough of an army for anyone who’s _not_ insane to take them seriously. > > Seriously, what is supposed to have _started_ this war? Because without that all we have to go on is…butt-hurt conservative crazies who want to shoot people for fun. There aren’t enough of those in the entire country to make the US Military _blink_. Pssst… it’s a hypothetical. If you don’t want to answer the hypothetical you aren’t being forced to participate. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2019, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/96 "2019-03-02T00:39:11Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Pssst… it’s a hypothetical. If you don’t want to answer the hypothetical you aren’t being forced to participate. Well, in lawyer terms, it’s an incomplete hypothetical, which makes it impossible to answer intelligently. We can’t even identify who would want to be on Team Red and Team Blue until we know what the fight is about. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2019, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/97 "2019-03-02T00:41:28Z")
> [@Chingon](#): > > These threads are always right-winger Viagra. I disagree completely. Exactly the opposite in fact. ---
**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 2, 2019, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/98 "2019-03-02T00:44:20Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Pssst… it’s a hypothetical. If you don’t want to answer the hypothetical you aren’t being forced to participate. You should probably have quoted the post where I said the hypothetical was stupid and not the one where I was responding to you - this way it just looks like you’re asking me to leave because you have no better rebuttal to my arguments. The interesting part about this hypothetical is actually the holes in it. Why is this fight happening? Who started it? Is the military supporting somebody? Is the US Government supporting somebody? What does the rest of the world think of all this? How are the sides organized into ‘countries’? _Are_ the sides organized into ‘countries’? Was there even a formal declaration of war? I mean, yes, you can strip all that away and talk about which collective region has the advantage in the fight. Though the answer is “Whoever has the military” - which takes us right back to the unanswered questions. Ignoring the military (which is a big elephant to edge around), it probably comes down to a variety of factors, mostly coming down to who has what supplies when shit gets real. For every commodity rural can cut off from urban, urban can bone a similar commodity for rural. Rural has more food (…growing slowly in the fields…), but they’ll be boned if Urban cuts off their fuel supply because they’re so spread out. Urban has a bunch of clearly identifiable targets…but if Rural musters a significant military in one place they’ll have a target there too. Urban has technology, and can probably control the satellites - Rural can’t hide. Until Rural cuts off the power, boning _everybody_ - the power grid can’t handle shutting down just the parts one side likes. So yeah, there’s a discussion there, but it too is based on unknowns - and much less interesting unknowns than _what the hell is going on here?_ ---
**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 2, 2019, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/99 "2019-03-02T01:25:39Z")
Part of the problem with this question is that we don’t have a clear scenario in mind as to how this conflict comes about. So I propose the following: The 2020 election comes and is people vote based on whether or not they approve of Trumps job performance. As a result Trump is defeated by[53.2% to 42.0%](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/) with 4.8% going to third party candidates. Trump gets on Fox News and the right wing air waves claiming that the election was stolen by hoards of illegal immigrants, and of voter fraud with the intention to over throwing Democracy and Turning the US into a Communist dictatorship, he therefor calls for armed resistance. At the same time a UFO goes by cloaking the United States with a Partisan intensifier beam. The 42% who approve of Trump believing every word he says. Since he is still in DC (Heart of Blueland) he is arrested for inciting rebellion. So both sides believe that they are the real American fighting against an unlawful insurgency who is trying to overturn democracy. The active military is split [basically down the middle](https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2018/10/15/support-for-trump-is-fading-among-active-duty-troops-new-poll-shows/) with a bit more of the officers siding with the blue side and enlisted men siding slightly more with the red side. Have at it. ---
**Author:** ![Littleman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ccd318/32.png) [@Littleman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Littleman)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2019, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384/100 "2019-03-02T01:35:41Z")
Begbert2, you are generally confusing a war with a rebellion. For the most part civil wars form in roughly one of three ways , which are really just two. 1. Government collapses, this an oversimplification that is actually more like smaller factions have no faith that the larger faction is actually functional so states take over mostly, but the lack of centralized government creates a power vacuum which usually attracts opposing military coups. 2 regions decide they are unrepresented and secede, forming their own centralized government, effectively you have two nations. Both may claim to be the real US. 3 some sort of governmental flaw creates confusion about who it’s legitimate leaders are. Under any of these circumstances the only one with any hope of a blue sided majority military is 2 First of all, in any of these circumstances militaries follow their chain of command. The only difference is who is at the top. Second the national guard makes up more than 2/3 of the US military. The top of the chain of command of each states NG before going federal is the Adjutant general then governor. Whether a states NG goes along with it’s governor is questionable if it’s AG decides to side with the next regular army general that is willing to put themselves in over the AG. Due to the extent to which NG has been federalized , many resources may or may not depend upon loyalty to that person. So in the case of 1 all opposing coups are likely led by red generals who all likely believe they are restoring the US. Same for 3 2 it is possible that enough state NGs and factions of a split federal army could make up a majority, if the seceding region includes only a small portion of red states. Otherwise , blue is screwed Essentially in all cases you have the vast majority of of the military simply supporting different flavors of red. Now, if we assume states collapsed too, then you likely have your NG following a red general who’s goal is to restore order, even if they are loyal to a former blue governor, they are really the one in charge, which could end either way for that states government since the governor’s subordinates likely would need to be quelled for that to happen…after all how did the state gov collapse in the first place? Thus resulting in a major replacement of government. Also, if location or command has anything to do with how the federal army splits, you’re again looking at basically every major division being squarely in red territory. Lastly, none of the military wants to work for blue because they know blue wants to cut their pay down to peanuts. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-advantages-would-blue-america-have-in-a-civil-war/830384.md?page=6)