I wouldn’t count on Russia to support Blue America.
The little self-sufficient family farms are basically a myth. Most farming in the United States is agribusiness and the agricultural production of the Midwest is only possible with modern technology. When the military and law enforcement start seeing their children die from bad nutrition and lack of medical treatment, loyalties change.
True, even though they might be in politically blue states, those farmers are more likely to be conservatives than progressives. There’s a world of difference between Fresno and Frisco.
You think the army is a monolith that would only support one side?
And I wouldn’t count on Russia to support Red America for any reason that would be good for the citizens of Red America.
But that doesn’t mean their going to side with out-of-state political rebels over their own state government.
I thought the Army had a command structure, I didn’t think they just act on their own. Are you assuming that the Army is disbanded and every soldier would ignore superior officers and just go their own way?
And in places further south, the breakdown is a lot closer to 50/50.
My suspicion is that any kind of civil war based on ideological lines would make the Syrian Civil War look like a child’s tea party. We’d have very little in the way of geographic segregation, lots of guns, and presumably a lot of hostility.
Setting aside the military for reasons already mentioned, techbros are overwhelmingly neoliberal Democrats. I wouldn’t expect power stations, cell phone towers, or the Internet to function very well in areas under rebellion.
About as much oil is refined along the northern border and in eastern states as in Texas and other Gulf states, so I’m not seeing a big advantage for either side there. And these stats may be out of date.
In modern warfare, communication is overwhelmingly important. If you can’t keep communication functioning, you’re gonna have a hard time shooting in the right direction.
If we are positing a situation where everyone goes psycho and starts shooting their neighbors, no one wins.
What generally happens though is that the folks overwhelmed in a given area are quickly subdued or just keep their yaps shut to start with. Farmer Tom isn’t going to withhold his food from those darned libruls in Syracuse and go broke himself out of loyalty to the 12th Trumpist Motor Rifle Division in Alabama.
In the actual US Civil War, Union loyalists in the South and Confederate apologists and anti-war types in the North generally did not cause trouble. There was conflict along the margins in border states.
We should also agree upon, whom the aggressor is. That changes the dynamics of everything.
In the midst of a civil war with one group of US citizens fighting another group of US citizens? Hell, yes.
Why do liberals so consistently think they’ll be the ones with tanks, air support, and the Navy on their side?
The blue would almost certainly be the aggressor.
I wouldn’t expect power stations, cell phone towers, or the Internet to function very well in any area that’s part of a civil war. I wonder which side has more ham radio operators.
Because ultimately we represent the values of the Constitution of the United States that our military and law enforcement swear to uphold. Also, I doubt the red states could maintain the science and technology level necessary to keep the tanks, air support, and the Navy together.
Where are the outlaws going to get tanks, planes and ships?
And which party has a much larger military presence? C’mon now! It’s one thing to pretend a majority of CA = all of CA but in what world does it make any sense to think a minority of the military =all the military?
True, but what kind of war are we talking about? Breakaway states? Pockets of insurrection? Isolated incidents of organized terrorism? The doomsday scenario would be multiple states declaring a new nation over the objections of the United States, but I’m not convinced we’re anywhere near that point right now. A remote, but more realistic threat is the pockets of insurrection scenario, but even that’s somewhat distant.
HA!
You’re funny. If we look at the political persuasion of the nutjobs who talk about starting wars, the breakdowns are as follows:
-
Conservative gun-fornicators who want to shoot some libruls, and expect to rise up and kill them all with the seven dozen guns in their basement, while taking no injuries themselves because they’re action heroes who have their own gas-powered generators.
-
Liberal hypersensitives who claim that the populace is going to have to rise up in rebellion against the government when Trump hands the keys over to Putin any second now.
Blue America isn’t going to start a war with Red America because Blue America barely registers the fact that Red America exists. As big, scary, and threatening as rural gun hoarders perceive themselves, liberals roll their eyes and think to themselves that the gun guys wouldn’t last five minutes against law enforcement once the law got serious. No, the liberals who want to start a war want to oppose a real enemy, one that’s actually a possible threat: the government. (They’d lose horribly, obviously.)