California is hated, so yes. I’m sure the average US military member would love to drive a tank through LA or San Francisco just firing on everything they see, killing all the “homosexuals”, “liberals”, “gangbangers” and “illegals” they can. And raping every woman they can catch, to “put them in their place”.
And that assumes the fascists don’t just go straight to nukes, which I think they would.
Slow clap for the Grand Guignol. 
(I do find it hard to tell how serious you are when you say things like this… but I can’t say it doesn’t give me a bit of a chuckle, and I tend to agree with the opinions that lie beneath the gory special effects, lol.)
It’s hated by fascist morons thinking only at surface level. There are Liberals in the military too, you know, as well as people smart enough to understand California’s role in the national economy, etc.
Riiiight. If anyone was going to use a nuke, it was Putin, but even he has demurred. But the US military brass would drop nukes on US cities, knowing that they would instantly destroy the US and world economies. Lulz.
Haha. Good one! 
Once enough dissenters have been purged there won’t be anyone other than fascists and those willing to keep their heads down and go along with it. And they don’t care about the economy, they care about hurting and killing people. They’d happily plunge the world into a total economic collapse if it made their enemies suffer with them.
The goal of the white nationalists is to purge the majority of our population; do you think they can do that without wrecking the economy? They don’t care, or refuse to believe it.
This is not even a realistic picture of Nazi Germany, which was more about bringing the entire population together under a single authoritarian politics and later the war effort, minus the Jews of course (though not entirely with success).
What you are describing is a war of genocide in the US, which would also be a civil war with many players involved. If if you wish to speculate that the fascists would succeed in short order (because reasons), the results would be very unpredictable, and Trump and everyone else who was instigating the thing would know that they are painting targets on themselves. One can say a lot of things about Trump, but one thing he is not is destructive of his own perceived interests.
IOW, what you are saying is utterly lacking in realism.
“The Day of the Rope”, it’s called.
And the fascists control the military so there’d be no civil war; just the fascists massacring anyone who gets in the way.
I’d like to say no. My experience in the Army is 20 years out of date, but the difference between lawful and unlawful orders was heavily stressed during Basic Training and somewhat regularly afterwards during my time in service.
That said, collateral damage is something that happens often in war, which is one of the main reasons it’s so terrible. Would a US soldier actively target a non-threatening Canadian civilian? I’d say almost certainly not. I want to believe it would still be a rare extremist who would do something like that, which the Army tries (tried?) to weed out long before any kind of combat deployment.
Would they target a combatant in such a way as to put Canadian civilians in harm’s way, and potentially hurt or kill some of them? Unfortunately I think that’s far more likely. One of many reasons I am greatly opposed to any such military misadventure. Even if there were good reasons to consider attacking Canada (and there aren’t, not even close), I would suggest extreme caution about actually going through with it.
To morally justify any war, you have to agree that some, if not many, innocent civilians will die, but that accomplishing the mission is more important than than preventing their deaths, and there are no other options besides military force for accomplishing it. That’s why I think there can be almost no justifiable offensive wars in modern times, even in theory. Of course defending yourself militarily is still quite often justified, as in Ukraine.
Emphasis added. As we say on the Dope: Cite?
How does one cite a future event?
Cite that the fascists currently control the military.
You have heard of a man named Trump, right?
California couldn’t even slightly delay the federal government from wasting the state’s water.
This thread would have been simpler if we had just listed all American military ‘actions’ and then noted which ones did not include US troops intentionally killing civilians.
Yes, but the debate doesn’t stop there. What percentage of the military supports him, what percentage doesn’t, etc. I’m sure you’ve heard a few words from Gen. Milley, right? He’s not going to be the only one who thinks like that in the military. And so on.
By the same token, I don’t assert that the military is full of Liberals who will do exactly as I would like. I don’t know. There are insiders, but we don’t know what they observe or think. It’s a bit of a black box.
Then he’ll be purged. As will the others.
So you think that Trump will effect a major purge of the military and then go buck wild on numerous countries. Is that your prediction?
Yes, as will whomever follows him. They are already purging the government in general and made it clear that purging all dissent (and non-while males) was a goal of theirs before they even took office. And they are already very loudly making their aspirations of conquest clear.
Once Trump dies and the actual ideologues take full control I expect an outright genocidal crusade with the intent to purge everyone who isn’t white and Christian from the planet. Complete with the large scale use of nuclear weapons to kill people by the hundred of millions; the Holocaust will be nothing in comparison to the nuclear decimation of Africa and South America. And by the time Trump is gone the entire command structure will have been replaced with fascists who’ll do so with glee.
So basically Paul Muad’dib’s space jihad?! Dude, no, you’re wrong. But wrong as always in an entertaining way!
No, The Turner Diaries. The Right is looking to make their long-standing fantasies a reality now that they have the power to do it.
Good news: It’s not going to happen.
For a certain definitions of not, going, and happen you certainly are correct.