One of the thoughts I had while travelling around the former Yugoslavia, is if you want to see how a future US civil war would play out, look at the Yugoslavian civil war.
Basically you had gun owning, rural, ethnically monolithic (at least self-identifying as such) population, that dominates the armed forces. Against the ethnically diverse cosmopolitan urban population.
I do think that if war comes that split of the military will be less equal and more in favor of the Blues, this will happen the moment the would be soldiers for the neo-confederate army ask what will happen to their benefits and their GI Bill funds.
Do not imply others get sexual gratification in this fashion. This is a warning.
[/moderating]
Here’s a rather thought out account of a fracturing of the US in the form of a documentary about it from a perspective of some time after it’s occurrence. With bits of first person perspective in the forms of journal entries.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://slate.com/human-interest/2012/11/civil-war-who-would-come-out-on-top-if-the-united-states-all-declared-war.html&ved=2ahUKEwiHw4eaquLgAhUIqlkKHcdZA3cQFjAKegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw0sFTq7ikjaCfz0k5XNhFuO&cshid=1551491501574
Can’t speak for it’s accuracy, but it’s at least as valid as anyone else’s speculation I’m sure
It wouldn’t be a rural versus urban civil war. Large portions of the United States are purple even in places like Texas. It would be the kind of civil war where your nice suburban neighbors bust down your door in the middle of the night, drag you out into the street, and then shoot you in the face.
Seems to me the US Civil War is the best guide we have. Rural farmers vs big city folks. The rural folk were better led and, man-for-man, better soldiers.
How’d that work out for them?
In most wars the side who has greater production capacity wins. This is why Admiral Yamato knew attacking the US to start WWII (for the US) was foolish. He studied in America, saw its industrial capacity. But everyone else wanted to go so he did his best to obtain a quick, decisive victory. Despite that the US overwhelmed the Japanese by virtue of having more stuff. Civil War worked out kinda the same (north out produced the south).
So from the OP the hope is they starve the blue states more than beat them into submission. Not likely since blue states can import from elsewhere.
If the starve them out bit doesn’t work red states have no chance. They will kill more blue people than blue kills red but in the end quantity has a quality all its own.
And being a Chicagoan I can say there is no shortage of guns in the city.
For a vaguer colloquial definition of civil war than US published doctrine uses, I see one area where Team Blue has a distinct advantage. I’d call it roughly doctrine.
For the 2000 civil disturbance exercise I was a part of in the National Guard we used a hypothetical scenario driven by the civil disturbances in Seattle in 1999 that were part of protesting the WTO meeting. Much of the supporting intelligence annexes in the Brigade order were mildly changed documents from actual anarchist groups linked to or known to have participated. Names and superficial details were changed to protect us from being seen as planning directly to respond to actual groups. I’ve continued to do a dive into both sides extremists groups every year or so. (Post 9-11 that involves TOR browser even if I did have a reasonable professional development justification… waves at the the three letter organization 
)
The part of the left that professes a belief in a diversity of tactics (i.e. they don’t limit themselves to non-violent tactics) almost seems to channel one of the seminal works about insurgencies - Mao’s On Guerrilla War. They get the complicated interplay between use of force and politics in pursuit of their aims. There were detailed descriptions of tactics, techniques and procedures based for phase one of a Maoist insurgency. It wasn’t at the level what is the norm among military professionals producing doctrinal publications. It was pretty good for amateurs, though. There wasn’t much that related to the second phase and basically nothing for the last of Mao’s three phases, mobile operations. (That third stage is more at the level where we are likely to see what the US military defines as civil war for a movement that starts as an insurgency.) Since most insurgencies can’t move past the first of Mao’s phases focusing on the early part is important. The core of Team Blue’s extremists get how to start an insurgency. That provides a valuable cadre.
Team Red’s extremists tend to focus on guns and small unit tactics using copies of military manuals. That’s great if you can jump into stage three early. It works if we see something like the US civil war where we skip the insurgency because of major political subdivision that already field militias just need volunteers. They seem to ignor the importance of politics in strategy let alone the even greater importance of politics in an insurgency. They are mostly focusing on an early head to head fight that they probably shouldn’t be in early if they want to win. It’s mostly pretty boring to read since I have a better understanding of the tactics than they are regurgitating. It does sometimes work for laughs. I’d rather be a counter-insurgent against them. Metaphorically the start of that COIN effort can be as simple as deploying a bunch of meat grinders next to signs that read “Stick dick here.”
Unless there’s a shot at an early coup de main, Team Blue has a strong advantage. They understaand how to navigate the very risky starting period.
Cite? Because I have one that shows differently. Last October Military Times published a poll. Their findings:
An interesting side issue that might affecct Trump’s support is that Mattis was still SECDEF when that poll was taken.
The way Mattis’ initial resignation and then firing played out might have reduced Trump’s support further.
Admiral Yamamoto :smack:
Very embarrassing.
You are absolutely correct and I can only blame changing my wording, but not checking that I hadn’t screwed it up before posting.
HERE is the cite I was thinking of which, as you said, and as I meant to, shows that most officers “see him unfavourably”.
Both sides will think they are the victim, that is never new. The decisive vote will be on who the outside world feels is the aggressor. That will be determined in large part by a few hapless individuals faced with unfortunate circumstances at a very specific moment in time who may very well not even be in direct contact with the power brokers of their side.
So what you are saying is you already know in the US who will commit genocide.
And I feel compelled to point out that I ended my assertion by stating, “And I believe it’s a majority within the officers, so I take some comfort in that.” In other words, as someone who is more than a tad anti-Trump, I took comfort from the fact that most officers shared at least some of my contempt for him.
If such is so, one huge disadvantage for the blues would be that it’s much easier to target liberals by race and appearance than conservatives. People being white Caucasian doesn’t necessarily tell you much about them, but someone being black/Hispanic/other minority makes them highly likely to be liberal.
But, that would make the few minority reds (that are not insignificant) to feel betrayed. Not to mention that then it would be time for many whites to wonder (and for real then) if the reds are the real baddies.
That also would convince other nations on the fence in this hypothetical to then support the blue side more.
The real disadvantage for blue would be If red gave a few years of peace, In which time blue would cut their armies budget in half and take away their guns.
Why do you think this would happen?
It would not only not be rural versus urban, there is absolutely no reason to expect it would involve only two factions. Some unpredictable number of factions will gain foreign support from diverse sources…the Russians…The Chinese…other governments that it wouldn’t be hard so list. Still other factions will receive support from non-governmental agencies such as various terrorist organizations and multi-national criminal cartels. The factions will have shifting alliances among each other. As multi-factional wars tend to be clusterfucks, tnis one will too.
As I have noted in previous threads on this very topic, having control of some US military assets isn’t the gamebreaker it would appear. Let’s assume that the bluish side has control of all the B52 bombers in US inventory. Which US cities are they going to level that will give them the win? How many tons of expensive and hard to replace munitions will they expend carpet bombing more rural areas to kill a few reddish soldiers? Hell let’s give a bluish faction control of all the nuclear submarines. What use are they? Of course, one faction won’t control everything. Assets will be scattered as military units fragment.
The biggest advantage the blue side has is that they are supposedly the smart side. Therefore,they should do the smart thing and avoid fighting such a war.
That’s what we’ve been doing
That has been brought up – it would not be certain to be an exercise of two or three organized “state actors”. Factional influencers would be calling out to their sympathizers to rally to the cause and “take second amendment solutions” of their own initiative against whoever they identify as “enemies domestic”… only now not even bothering to claim they were *not *advocating that.
So, the model would not be America of the 1860s, but more like Lebanon of the 1970s-80s – not really two competing sides but multiple factions trying to see how they best position themselves, the major players end up each with a powerful patron preventing their collapse, no one side can conclusively defeat all others, and you have a problem bringing it to a close because whatever compromise is arrived at will lleave someone short or be seen as benefitting some outsider.
And some assets would be rendered ineffective as unit cohesion fails and chains of command get disrupted.
They were not better led and were not, man for man, better soldiers. Those things just are not true.