While everyone is watching the world stage and some are predicting WWIII, isn't there a good chance that the USA is getting close to some kind of civil war?
All the ingredients are there and it won't take much to put it all together.
All the ingredients are there and it won't take much to put it all together.
Yeah, somehow all my gun-owning friends get all awkward and quiet when I ask them how it's gonna feel to shoot at the 18yo army recruits and national guard when they finally "come for their guns." I haven't even gotten to ask what anti-drone measures they have.
Not one of them is ready for the realities of a shooting war with the American Military.
I haven't even gotten to ask what anti-drone measures they have.
The answer will be "none" because unless they're ex-military, their entire contribution to any militia is usually "gun".
Most of them wouldn't pass fitness requirements nor take orders. Few of them have other skills such as first aid, communication tech or drone piloting.
Even when contributing their gun, you can't assume they know how to safely and usefully handle a weapon, or that they're mentally fit for combat, because none of that is a requirement for buying a gun.
It's a hero fantasy they've literally never thought critically about, but it's supposed to make all the mass shootings worth it.
I'm afraid you're the one living the fantasy. Of course many of these idiots are exactly as you say. But have you been around such people?
Or are you basing your opinion on the pictures we see on the internet? The pictures thrown out there and made popular because of how foolish they make these people seem?
I'm begging you all, please don't be so dismissive and naive.
I get off-topic for this post towards the end, fit better in the original reply:
Y'all, please, we gotta stop pretending these guys are fat losers.
Right after 01/06 I was at a gun show and bought an old army canteen off a guy. 35-40, fit, military demeanor, all that. As I was walking off, another guy saw something that clued him in that the vendor was an Oath Keeper and they had a low-key chat. He talked about their preparations! Fucking terrorist.
My neighbor is still flying his Trump flag high. Proper flagpole, well lit, all that. Young man, fit, ex-military demeanor. I refuse to speak to him, and never will. No one else has an issue with this! They are meek and complicit.
His next-door neighbor was a former friend of mine. Again, 37 and fit as hell, but not military. First night I met him he told us his brothers were at 01/06. I gave the FBI what I knew, which wasn't much. This guy is a smart, reasonable man, and while not a supporter, still will not disavow Trump.
I'm 52, fairly fit, well-armed and practiced. I shoot every weekend at my camp for fun. Shotguns, various pistols and rifles, I shoot it all. I'm no expert, but I can shoot better than your average bear. If it came down to brass tacks, and we were equally armed, I seriously doubt I could prevail against any of those 3 men.
For the love of god, please get armed, learn safety and practice. FFS, the GOP front-runner is speaking more and more radically. He just called me "vermin" that must be eradicated. He's speaking of "internal enemies". He means you. And it's not just his usual inane rhetoric, look up Project 2025. It a fleshed-out plan to take over the executive branch and impose their will.
What the fuck will it take to get libs off their ass and prepare?! Harsh words and votes are not gonna suffice if Trump gets back in. I fully expect my neighbors to come knocking once Brown Shirts are authorized. Committee of Public Safety anyone?
"Look man, we understand you don't agree, and that's all good, but we gotta take your guns for your own safety. Trust us, you'll be OK, just hand 'em over."
Your country and your very life may be on the line soon. And yes, fighting back may mean your personal extinction. But that was in the cards anyway.
Pro-gun propaganda masqurading as life advice.
You openly admit that idiots and fascists have been armed, that you wouldn't win a fight against any of them even with your guns, and that an armed population has done absolutely nothing to stop a fascist running for president.
Yet rather than fixing any of that, your solution is "everybody buy more guns even though it doesn't work and funds fascists by proxy".
As best I can figure, the majority on the left are completely unaware of how dangerous things have gotten over the last few years. Unless you're living in it, most people see it as histrionics.
We live in the deep south in what used to be an island of relative progressiveness. I have acquaintances that joined the three percenters, know former military spouting Q shit. Lost the only man I ever called brother to the insanity. Things have CHANGED in the last few years.
Our friend circle has shrunk and we no longer talk to our neighbors.
We're moving to the northeast this summer. There's a very real chance that it won't be safe for us here much longer.
Like you, we're armed and also realize that it likely won't be enough.
History doesn't repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme. The smart Jews with means got the fuck out of Germany before things popped off. We can't afford to leave the country but hopefully we'll land somewhere safer.
Hope nothing happens and all the worry has been for nothing. I really want to be wrong.
The left is clueless. I was there not long ago!
They think with enough "gotchas!" and revelations of hypocrisy they can win hearts and minds. Nah. We're miles past that. Miles past logic, truth and talking rationally.
Things have indeed changed radically. My guess is that many liberals are missing it because they're in their own little political bubble. Imagine trying to convince someone from Washington State or San Francisco how crazy it's become.
Anyway, I don't have the money to run, and don't wish to. I'll stay and fight for America if it comes to that. I'm middle-aged, and have had a full life, so that's not bravado speaking.
I have a wife, daughter, and son. My daughter is queer. My son is a teen. There isn't a future here for them. My daughter, especially, will be in danger.
I've had to cut all contact with my family.
We've been saving since 2020.
If it was just me, I'd stay.
I pass as a bearded white guy good ol boy. The shit I hear. These people aren't coming back. Even if nothing happens with the next election, I don't know how they rejoin reality.
I don't know what happens to this country. I kind of hope there is a bloodless balkanization.
Man, this hit home for me. I'm a queer woman and I know my dad worries about me tremendously. I don't really have anything to add to the conversation, just wanted to comment. Hopefully things won't get too bad...
In Project 2025's manifesto, Severino, who is the Heritage Foundation's vice-president on domestic policy, writes that the Food and Drug Administration is "ethically and legally obliged to revisit and withdraw its initial approval" of mifepristone and misoprostol.[21] He also recommends that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention "update its public messaging about the unsurpassed effectiveness of modern fertility awareness-based methods" of contraception.[21] Severino says that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services should require that "every state report exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother's state of residence, and by what method."[21]
Fucking hell. They are honestly trying to say that pulling out a few times a month is more effective than the morning after pill? Or are they implying that abortion only exists as a measure of birth control, and want to bog down whatever they can’t stop with bureaucratic busywork.
And that’s just abortion. I’m still reading the Wikipedia page and came across plenty of vile unamerican shit in the alphabetically-sorted “Overview” section before abortion.
I swear the writing on the wall is perfectly fucking clear and if Trump wins in November because of a few hundered well-intentioned but fucking deluded far-leftists voting for spoiler candidates, again…I don’t know. What the fuck. Go to another country? Looks like America is just the beginning. Half of Europe and a fair bit of the UK is going down the same far right rabbit hole. Pretty soon gonna be left with just “authoritarian shithole countries” or “original shithole countries”.
Congrats, conservatives. You finally found the New World Order you were looking for.
Edit: more…
When discussing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Severino called for the rescinding of regulations "prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, sex characteristics, etc."[38]
Fucking hell. Who was “having anti-discrimination laws” hurting? Any answer to that is patently absurd. The do this just to rub LGBTQ faces in the dirt. Fucking schoolyard bullies. Part of their master plan is to change the rules to make it okay to punch the queer kids.
And you know they are just gonna start there because it’s the most least out-group today. They’ll start rolling back in reverse chronological order. Next it will be the Asians, and then the Italians and Irish won’t be white anymore. Then they’ll just rip off the bandaid on the whole color and race thing. It’s just tricky to do when Italians are still white.
Edit again…
In the foreword of Project 2025's manifesto, Roberts writes,[38]
Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.[21]
Where exactly is this omnipresent transgender kiddy porn? Asking for a friend. I think Mr Robert’s needs to be informed that C:\Pictures isn’t actually on the internet, even if you open it in Internet Explorer. I know, your “nephew” told you that the “C” is for children, the colon is for where you want to put your peen, and the backslash is to indicate transgendered. It’s not true. He played you for the idiot you are.
What if some subset of the US military were to split off and join a hypothetical rebellion?
The leadership in place is very adept in the art of maintaining the status quo while eroding the baseline slowly. For there to be any dissent among the military there would have to be a very radical shift that goes against the middle. It isn't about trans rights, or abortion rights, or civil rights. Those, despite what both sides of the media will tell you, are centrist issues. The sides that have a side have already chosen their side and nothing will change that. There is no battle for the current extremes. If there were any sort of "civil war" it would be for issues that are detrimental to the foundation of the country which is constantly shifting based on the will of the leadership. I'm kind of talking in circles now, but the point is that as long as we have a two party system there will always be an enemy and a champion for both sides. It won't be until that is gone that either side will have a reason to act and a way to grab the center. Give us 20 years of partisan leadership and we'll see action. While we swap back and forth every 4-8 years no one bitches for long enough for any significant movement to form, and the military will continue to defend the middle.
Roughly a quarter of the armed forces is under 25, the largest age group https://www.statista.com/statistics/232711/number-of-active-duty-us-defense-force-personnel-by-age/
So even if there's a split, the front lines will still be mostly people too young to rent a car.
Lol yeah, a lot of people don't realize our military is 20 year olds leading 18 year olds.
Just like nearly every war ever fought ever: the poor young masses sent to their early graves over battles between the old disconnected elite chasing power.
They still need logistics. You could take your rifle but good luck with your tank, fighter jet, helicopter, or ship.
I fully believe a good portion of our armed forces would split in half. Then issue would be which half is in charge of all the toys
I don't know how it is now but when I was in the US Army there was a sizeable chunk of men that were militia members that hated the government but joined the military to get combat training.
Bear in mind a sizeable chunk of that sizeable chunk were probably being edgy barely-post-teenage shitheads. It's a version of the guy who would have joined but [whatever] and besides, he'd have punched the drill (sergeant/instructor/daddy/etc.) on the first day of training. Some assholes just always have to be different.
Looks like you forgot why Trump shuttered Stars & Stripes.
It's not even close, especially among officers.
The most likely scenario is an action that causes the majority of the military to rebel such as what happened in Syria. That's partially why the military swears an oath to the Constitution and not the standing government.
For that to happen you need an inciting incident that is at least perceived to be against the Constitution by the majority of the military including a significant portion of the top brass.
We almost got there with all the January 6th shenanigans but the inciting incident involved the military sitting down and not listening to the Executive branch's unethical orders.
The states have armies. That is the national guard. Some states have defense forces as well.
So if we have a civil war, there are plenty of armies to go around.
I hear lots of rumblings about a civil war but I don’t think we are close to one. You hear it from all sides. California wants to leave. Texas wants to lead. East Oregon wants to join Idaho.
I just see people bitching as they always do.
While I may dislike my current president. I’m not going to pick up a rifle for any of these jokers to try to change my government. Overall our system works. Something drastic would have to happen to change my mind.
Overall our system works
I was with you all the way till right here.
The system does not work when corruption is pretty standard especially in the higher levels.
Are there any systems that work within an environment of standard and widespread corruption though?
Yeah it's called actually following checks and balances.
The main issue is humans are naturally corrupted by power. Due to that fact we need a system that actually upholds the rules for the people in power. This whole notion that someone in a position of authority can get away with breaking any laws or rules is the problem. People with power should be held to a higher standard and extremely scrutinized. Even the smallest mistakes should be blasted throughout the news reels and should have immediate punishment.
When you're actually willing and able to punish the corrupt people in your system you lower the amount of corruption overall.
But for some reason most people think that people with authority are untouchable and as a result they practically are.
That's what we were going for. Thing is, any "system* of checks and balances is composed of the corrupt individuals it's designed to check and balance. Sociopaths gravitate to positions of power, and are really great at campaigning for them.
What's your alternative to the present system, sortition?
Why I said overall. I feel corruption has increased significantly in my lifetime but we are working to punish corruption. I count that as overall it’s working. Now if we don’t clean it up, then I’ll reconsider that
Idk this whole Donald Trump thing kinda tells me we're already fucked on that regard.
Kinda hard to claim we're punishing corruption when he's still in the court systems almost a year after his failed coup
I’m so sorry to do this to you. It’s been almost three years, January 21-December 23. The pandemic fucked everyone’s sense of time though.
It literally happens constantly to me. I used to have a pretty good greater sense of time, and I can still remember/estimate pretty well when things happened until 2019, but time’s a weird black hole after that
Not formally, but he was forced to resign. That only happened because it was made clear to him that he would be impeached, and removed from office.
I guess my main point is "intent matters" doesn't apply equally.
Common crime intent means nothing in most courts. Like in some states if you perform a crime and someone dies regardless of if you were involved with their death in anyway you'll be charged with murder just for simply being there.
Meanwhile a corporation can poison it's customers and because it wasn't completely obviously intentional* they barely even get a fine.
*I say it that way because they know damn well what they're doing and know that even if they get fined it's cheaper to just pay the fine and keep breaking the law. Looking at you McDonald's.
Courts take time.
Ignore Trump for just a minute. The average court case takes years in many cases. Isn’t that insane? Speedy trial is a joke.
It only takes that long if your in a position of authority though.
Meanwhile as an average citizen a cop can just decide to arrest you, make up a bullshit story and your in jail without bail that day.
Speedy trial is a right that you have and can invoke. However, it almost always screws the defense. As such, everyone waives it.
and that is a fair point. I feel often we have people over charged for bullshit crimes and then drag them through the system for years.
I am a conservative, so if I am saying that then you know the system is really out of whack.
Not sure you get what a civil war is. It's when the country fights itself. The national guard would be heavily involved in a civil war. Just like they were in the first civil war.
I suspected based on your comment, but I thought I would clarify. Without the guard then you could really don't have a civil war.
The states have armies. That is the national guard. Some states have defense forces as well.
Yeah there isn't a National Guard unit out there that stands a chance against an Active Duty unit of the same size. They do important work but the get a train up when they're federalized for a reason.
Does this count all the militias and radical groups? I know a few with grenade launchers and mini guns now.
No offense to the fat patrol but the Ukrainian military is having trouble with the Russian military, and they both have heavy ordnance.
A grenade launcher and a couple of miniguns vs national guard would be more like another Waco than a civil war.
You know the size of the US military. Even in the extremely unlikely scenario that those militias manage to band together, right under the FBI's nose, they wouldn't stand a chance.
And even if they did, it would hardly be a nation split. Most people would just see it as "our military vs. some extremist crackpots (or terrorists)"
Just tells the infantry where to call in mortar fire. Nobody has anything to say when the 120 rounds start landing from a mile away.
There's huge numbers of armed Americans who would be on both sides.
ITT: people who think the armed forces wouldn't split in a civil war, and that hundreds of millions of civvy owned guns wouldn't be a factor.
The armaments held by private citizens are laughable in the face of the weapons in the Military.
Any “civil war” in the US would likely be in the form of constant terrorism, not all-out gunfights.
Once the government actually starts cracking down on the domestic terrorists, they have no chance. With all the surveillance they've been doing since 9/11 they're bound to know exactly who to arrest.
Case in point, in only a few years they’ve prosecuted hundreds of people who broke into the Capitol building. They can certainly find you.
They still haven't found the guy that was leaving pipe bombs around on 1/6 have they? I hear what you're saying, but most capitol rioters got caught because they were fucking idiots.
I think that level of idiocy would still hold true for the people who start a civil war.
The small flat blade screwdriver in the front pocket of a mechanic is the most terrifying weapon on the planet.
I'd never sully my pocket prybar like that. I have a 24" adjustable wrench that is perfect for swinging.
If there was a true civil war the military would probably be divided with some on one side and some on the other but I really doubt there will be a civil war any time in the near future.
Chain of command.
The military is very good about making sure that the people that participate in it adhere to the rules they are given.
People that step out of line will be dealt with abruptly and brutally. I'm not saying there won't be dissension in the ranks, but I am saying that the number of military people that will split with their command structure is going to be minuscule and easily dealt with.
I disagree. That's all well and good when it's a common enemy, but when you're ordered to attack your family and friends who live in NY, that's a different ball game.
The military allows you to disobey orders that you find unconscionable.
That's part of our whole don't commit war crimes thing
But you do realize they're going to shoot you. If they're actually ordering illegal things they're going to shoot people who don't obey the orders too. That's a hard decision for a teenager to make.
You just need a couple of generals to say "no my orders are legitimate, theirs aren't, mine come for the real president!" and you have a problem. And all that takes it a little bit of blackmail and bribery or a couple of high ranking useful idiots or psychopathic grifters
Theoretically yes. But if you want to know the climate of senior officers you need look no further than the Joint Chiefs actually yelling at Trump in his office and disseminating memos on exactly what the military oath says. (Loyalty to the Constitution)
They aren't likely to turn anytime soon.
I don't know much about such things but I wonder whether it's possible in any meaningful way.
If there's a split they don't just divvy up the toys and have at it.
One side might have a few things on wheels and tracks, but can they call in an air strike? Will they even have GPS?
I don't get why people think this is an issue. armed Americans are generally shown going against incompetent, untrained police officers. Not the Military who is also just armed better than Americans are legally allowed to be.
Most gun law defenders also tend to overlook this too in fact. If the government wants to make armed citizens stop, they will do it.
A bunch of uppity, rag-tag civilians with handguns, even the handful of clown shows that call themselves “civilian militias” don’t have the resources, logistics, or numbers to combat the National Guard, let alone the rest of whatever armed forces may be brought to bear against them.
Don’t be silly.
I will also point out that the National Gun of the US is the AR-15/M4 which is a .223/5.56 rifle. It can be seen committing war crimes in the Middle East and murdering children on the middle of main street.
What pathetic few gun regulations we have are mostly related to barrel length and them not being fully automatic. The former only actually matters if you need to fire out of a vehicle (and has ballistics implications). And no, riding around in your cybertruck that will shred you with spall if anyone uses even a 9 mm doesn't count. And there is increasingly the argument that even military rifles/service weapons should not have automatic capability because a rifleman with full auto is just a waste of ammo.
Assuming that the result of a "civillian militia uprising" is not "And that is what we call a hellfire missile": The plates in actual military body armor are fairly regularly stopping multiple AK (7.62 mm) rounds. Those hit noticeably harder and is arguably why the US military is pushing for a 6.8 mm round as their standard. If you ever watched an action movie where the protagonist shrugs off a few shots to the chest and returns fire... yeah.
Which is why I always say: if the gun nuts actually gave even a single shit about "we need to be ready to fight the government" they wouldn't be pushing to have their emotional support assault rifles. The answer would be small caliber high velocity rounds fired from concealable pistols. That gives you good odds of getting rounds into vulnerable/less armored parts of the body and you are fucked if you are in a ranged engagement (soldiers carry a LOT of grenades and have access to air support) or a prolonged engagement (soldiers carry a LOT of grenades). Like, there is a reason that The Allies dropped so many pistols and concealable weapons to partisans in WW2.
Because any standing fighting force? They will literally be blown to hell.
And, to clarify. I don't care if you touch yourself to pictures of trump, Lenin, reagan, or che guevara. You are just as dead when the army rolls up.
Jokes on you. I worship at the altar of Murphy. I'll sure die in a hilarious way, but so will they!
When the will of the people is openly defied then the government are the terrorists, but by all means deep throat that boot.
Okay. Let's assume that you and your buddies are a trained militia. Not "I play paintball once or twice a year" or "I spend every weekend at the range shooting". I mean you actually have a command structure, know how to move as a unit, and are dedicated enough that you will lay down your life for the person next to you.
What are you going to do against an armored vehicle? Or a drone? Or even just indirect fire.
Because... any "reasonably" equipped military can kill millions of people with minimal effort. Just look at what is happening to Palestine.
Just because this topic interests me due to being the intersection of history, military history, "guns are cool even if I don't think civilians should have them", and "the thing that comes after social activism":
Even in the 1700s, a farmer with a gun in the shed was pretty much useless. Battles were won by large groups of people and the only reasons the US managed to beat the Brits were a combination of more or less "stealing" the British military structure that had been set up to defend ourselves coupled with most combat boiling down to sheer number of people who could sort of hold up a gun and maybe fire it. A couple angry farmers might be able to kill even twice their number of soldiers. But they would be up against ten or twenty times that number and one person going down doesn't stop the volley. And if you were actually an amazing shot with dozens of muskets and Heath Ledger to reload them for you so that you could constantly unload on anyone who approached your house on the hill? That is when they get the cannon or mortar.
It was largely the late 1800s to mid 1900s where the idea of a militia could actually fight against an army. Particularly the time around World War 2 when we saw a fundamental shift on the battlefield to where even an individual soldier, let alone a squad or company, had enough firepower to make a significant difference. Line of sight was still essential, even for indirect fire, and armored vehicles could still be consistently negated by bottles of gasoline. This is why we even famously saw things like the Wilmington insurrection of 1898 where a relatively limited number of people could cause widespread damage and be "not worth" the army intervening (racism helps a lot too)
But the tail end of the 20th century has largely negated that. Because yes, the individual soldier has more firepower than ever. But satelites and drones mean that you don't even need line of sight to devastate with indirect fire. And those individual soldiers likely have MUCH better gear than civilians (by design and law). For example, there is a lot of talk about whether the US "still owns the night" now that consumer grade night vision is "good enough". And that does make a significant difference in terms of raids. We likely will never be able to walk around double tapping helpless brown people (without prep work involving tying them up, cop style...) ever again. But it still means we can maneuver at night when most countries would need to take a break because their eyes hurt or they are nauseous from the FOV. Same with body armor and, probably, optics if the new rifle is any indication.
Which, funny enough, puts us back to the 1700s. A bunch of farmers/klansmen/activists/whatever can equip themselves and even train into a cohesive unit. Sure. And they'll kill maybe even ten to one in terms of infantry. And then an artillery strike or a missile or even just someone with a joystick inside of an APC will slaughter them and there will be nothing they can do.
Which is why the successful insurgencies are more about unrest and trying to outlast an occupation than anything else. And... that doesn't work when the country occupying your country is... your country.
Your entire post ignores the reality of what urban small arms warfare looks like. Look at the hellish time militaries have in urban settings: Fallujah, Kabul, Aleppo, Gaza City. Yes, militaries are way better than regular civilians, but there's something like 400 million guns in the US. This isn't just a few people we're talking about here. If 1% of the population puts up a half decent resistance there's going to be a hell of a fight.
Oh I was hoping somebody would play the "the brave men and women of the mujahideen" card!
Yes. Let's look at them
If an army does not want to destroy a population center or be seen as oppressors, they can put up a significant fight. That... mostly accomplishes nothing aside from slowly bleeding an army and leading to a withdrawal. Which, as I said, above, only works if there is somewhere to withdraw to. If that is the army's "land" then they won't pull out
So... let's now look at Gaza. Hamas engaged in a horrifically evil terrorist attack. The IDF instantly used that as an excuse to level Gaza to the ground and ethnically cleanse anyone who opposed them. It doesn't matter how great your small arms tactics are or how many ambushes you have set up if the army is willing to level a few city blocks... or a small city.
And just look at how much the Black Lives Matter movement was vilified by right wing chuds for the recipe for that.
Which gets back to: What are you and your, I am sure incredibly well trained, buddies going to do with all them guns when a tank or even just an APC rolls up? And this ain't like the movies (... or Russia in Ukraine) where it is a lone tank only defended by Brad Pitt's winning smile. There will be infantry as well to prevent you from running up and throwing molotovs at it (which wouldn't even impact an Abrams since that runs so freaking hot?). What will you and your buddies do against drones that are either dropping bombs, launching missiles, or spotting for artillery?
I'm not sure where you think I argued that the civilians would win. My argument is that there would be a civil war because there would be a ton of armed people on both sides of the conflict. You bring up Gaza City like they're all finished clearing it out. It doesn't matter how well an army is trained or equipped, urban warfare is absolutely brutal and it would be in America too. You think that the US military could take a city like New York without heavy civilian resistance? Don't make me laugh.
To answer your question: Me and my buddies would likely be the first to die.
Ah, so death cult with no actual interest in accomplishing anything.
Well, thanks for admitting it
It's the exact war we spent 20 years fighting already. You don't want your face on a network chart in a Battalion ops center. And the military wouldn't split down the middle. It's 50/50 blue/red but most of the conservatives in the military are wholly unimpressed with the far right. You shoot at an American and call it a war? They're going to respond negatively.
There’s huge numbers of armed Americans who would be on both sides.
The downvotes are from the people that don't want to believe its even possible.
My country is going through a civil war right now.
The US is nowhere near close. You'll be fine.
I've not lived there since I was 6. My experience is doomscrolling the news and getting really anxious about getting a new citizenship ASAP.
I have family there and they mostly moved outside the capital where the fighting is. Some are still in the capital. It's hard to contact them. Last I'd heard of my cousin he was eating raw flour to survive. He's a doctor in the military trapped in a place surrounded by fighting.
Where abouts do you reside now? What do you feel they overlook when Sudan is displayed visually or verbally discussed from the media.
Also for a pleasantry if someone said Poland was known for sausage, Germany for snitzel, U.S. for cheeseburgers, (all over generalized one off foods, not specific or defining) what would you say would be a food for Sudan?
I live in Qatar. Will be moving to Germany soon hopefully.
I don't really feel qualified to say what the media gets wrong about Sudan because like I said I didn't grow up there and I'm not a political scientist. Sudan is not talked about much in the western media and when it is, it's never good news. Usually because another coup or killing, and it's more accurate than most media in the middle east. But if you want an example of western media getting something completely wrong here's Fox News calling Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo a reformist. He's a genocidal warlord with ties to Russian Wagner. I suspect that article is propaganda because he's been known to hire PR firms to clean up his image.
Ok. Enough of the depressing reality. What food are we known for? I don't know actually. We share some of our culture and foods with our much more popular northern neighbor Egypt, but that culture is mostly attributed to them. For example we also have pyramids but not many know that. We also make Falafel, ful, mahshi etc.
We do have many foods that only we make but it's not known to outsiders. Usually Ramadan food: traditional stews eaten with gruels or fermented bread. There's some traditional drinks too.
One of those stews, is a food other Arabs know because of a funny coincidence: part of its name in our dialect means "male whore" in other dialects.
The food sounds interesting. I'd love to go visit some time. As I've gotten older it seems I have lost that "someday I'll go visit said place" spontaneity/hope for adventure. Born in 1989. I think it's time I re-find that part of myself. If I make it there I'll be sure to tell you a out the food. A nice falafel sounds good.
First of all, disclaimer, I'm just a random weirdo on the internet. I don't have a law degree, I'm not a politician. I'm probably naked and masturbating while writing this.
Are we going to have a Civil War 2: Now With More F150's where it's the north vs the south? No.
Are we going to reach a point where the US sort of falls apart into separate little countries after a lot of unpleasantness? I'm not as confident in saying "No".
I think what will happen first is less "civil war" and more "societal collapse". There are very few places in the US where someone can rent an apartment by themselves, and have a decent life with nice hobbies, while only having one income. Buying a house by yourself is even farther out of reach.
But I am noticing something that is a lot closer to everyone than real estate: food is getting expensive. A hamburger at a fast food joint used to be a quick and cheap, although not healthy, way to get lunch, but now a combo meal basically anywhere is $15. For one person. So cook at home, right? Ignoring the difficulties of cooking for oneself after working both jobs, or working all day at one job, that isn't much cheaper. Making a healthy meal for yourself and your family is a skill that not everyone has, and groceries aren't cheap either. I think the first thing that is going to happen is going to be mass food theft, followed by food riots. It's already starting in fact, how many memes have popped up with variations on the saying "If you see someone stealing food, no you didn't"? Stealing food from a large company is acceptable for a lot of people. With rising COL, we will approach a point where a majority of people cannot afford food, and food isn't a house or a shiny new car. Food isn't a choice.
There will be hysterical articles in NYT about how these poor struggling retailers are losing SO MUCH money (but not really) from theft, and you'll start seeing two squad cars parked outside of every grocery store and walmart - even in "nice" areas.
And that's where things will start to escalate. Not everyone likes police now, and seeing a neighbor thrown on the ground and arrested, if not just killed, in walmart because she was trying to get food for her family isn't going to make them more popular. One or two cops cannot fend off everyone in a walmart. Oh, the cops have guns? That's adorable, so do some people in a walmart. Political feelings about police won't matter when it's your stomach growling, when it's your children going hungry.
I expect this would be the point where food would get locked up, only distributed by employees. Which would make it cost more, and more time consuming to acquire. There will be lines. There will also be people who will grow food - but not everyone can do that, and I'm cynical enough to think that some locales will pass laws against "backyard farming" in the name of "food safety", pushed by grocery stores trying to get that extra .025% profit this quarter.
What will happen once people can't get food, will be the local PD being completely unable to enforce anything.
Remember that it's bread AND circuses.
There will be hysterical articles in NYT about how these poor struggling retailers are losing SO MUCH money (but not really) from theft
Now the only reason to park two squad cars outside of every Kroger is to determine minorities into doing what they were already doing, i.e.: going grocery shopping.
Tensions are definitely higher than last decade and the decade before. The collapse of the Soviet Union and relatively good economy of the 1990s relieved a lot of tension.
But we're still a ways from WW3. We're back into a pretty normal range for the Cold War. We know China and Russia have the will and the means to try and expand. But they know we have the will and the means to stop them in certain places. That's important because the first two world wars have very different start points that we aren't close to meeting.
World War 1 was started by chains of alliances between countries. They were meant to keep balance but they were decentralized. So there was no committee ruling on Article 5 or bringing new members in. Which is how anarchists in Serbia set off the alliances like a chain of explosives. Both the CSTO and NATO contain rules preventing such a thing. WW1 was helped by cultural views on war. Europe hadn't had a proper industrialized war yet. So everyone thought it was going to be another affair with picnics and a couple large set piece battles.
World War 2 was started by a specific ideology in a country run by meth heads. Hitler was as high as he was crazy. There were a lot of problems left over from World War 1 that gave him an opening but at the core of it all, if he had made a level headed assessment he'd have known he could never win against the US/UK/RUS alliance.
Neither Russia nor China wants the economic devastation that would result from a World War 3. They aren't meth heads and the glory of war is long dead. There's some rumors too that the Chinese are looking at what western equipment can do in Ukraine and they're currently purging some officers who insisted we were exaggerating our capabilities. (They built plans and bought equipment over decades on those recommendations). Russia couldn't invade a cardboard box much less a NATO country at this point.
Now, American Civil War 2. It's not likely for two reasons. One, fighting a war is far more complicated than it used to be. You could gather a bunch of rifles and cannons to have a serious force in 1861. Now days whoever the Army sides with will win in hours. It's not an exaggeration to say a militia could run off a town's police force, set up checkpoints, and take over. But while they were celebrating they'd get hit by air to ground missiles and 25mm rounds from a single helicopter they will never see or hear. And they certainly won't see the special forces team in the woods designating targets. If for some reason they did need to be engaged by the regular infantry it would not go well for them at all. They need to deal with drones, snipers, mortars, artillery, and light tanks. Furthermore there have been head to head practice fights between veterans and militias. (Reality TV in the 2000's got wild.) It never ended well for the militia. They would be outmaneuvered, pinned down, and dead, in about 5 minutes.
Two, the modern model is terrorism. In a Civil War you need a large percentage of support. You have to field whole divisions and the logistics therein. But for political violence you need support from 10 percent of the population in a region to have places to hide and logistics. Also, you can cause havoc with a force the size of a company.
I would say it's highly likely we'll see more political violence before we either come back together as a country or we allow a region to become autonomous or even independent.
Furthermore there have been head to head practice fights between veterans and militias. (Reality TV in the 2000's got wild.)
A British youtuber hired a few retired SAS to play paintball with him and his friends. Spoiler: the SAS guys won every round
You sometimes hear about the paintballers winning, but when you're not actually at risk of death you take more chances.
I played a little paintball, and the most impressive game was when I had sprinted along the perimeter to get a sniper angle on a path, wait 20 seconds, and have a Marine Recon AD barrel roll from behind a tree 30 feet from me that I never heard and put a single round in my goggles before I knew what was happening. It bounced but I wasn't about to call that anything but legit AF.
I saw the military haircut and asked him after the round.
I'm great against paper targets...but that's not the same as combat and I am crystal clear about it.
whoever the Army sides with will win in hours.
And what if the army splits in two? That happens in civil wars ya know!
Unlikely. The military has a weird culture. It's far more likely to stake out a position in the center for as long as possible. Going after violent extremists on both sides. In the end though it will choose the Constitution over anything else. So if there's one side still trying to use that, that's whose going to get the military. For reference, the military was so supportive of Trump and his anti Constitution rhetoric that they voted blue in 2020. That's not because it suddenly had more progressives or liberals. It's because the conservatives in the military are Constitutionalists.
All I an interested in is this....
Reality TV in the 2000s got wild.
Now I am familiar with the dystopia masterpiece that was kids Nation.
That was an episode of preppers. I can't remember if it was Discovery or History that ran the show. But yeah they thought they were going to blind night vision with flashlights. It didn't work.
I was also trying to generalize personal experience where someone would bring their "friends" to mandatory fun paintball. Well now that became a lot more fun real quick.
I feel like even 2000s night vision would laugh off a flashlight. If they have auto-dimming welding masks, then night vision would be a piece of cake.
Well there's civil war with actual armies and military actions and such. That's really not likely to happen.
Now civil unrest? Yes that may happen.
Not really: for context, the civil rights movement in 50's and 60's was far more violent, like actually violent with military being called in across many American cities.
Civil wars happen when people are hungry, lack shelter and jobs. None of that is happening here right now. Protesting and rioting is nothing when people have homes to return to and McDonald's to pick up on the way home.
Uh, lots and lots of people are hungry, lack shelter and jobs. Almost 600,000 people in the US right now are unhoused, and one in eight homes are food insecure (roughly 44 million). The only area where the US is doing good right now is the unemployment rate, which is currently sitting at an ideal 3.7%.
As for causes of civil war, economic inequality plays a large role, as does political deprivation, both of which are rampant (you can thank late-stage capitalism for the first, and the far-right for the second). There are other factors at play, of course, but it’s not outside the realm of possibility for the US to go there.
600K people spread across the US really isn't that many to deal with. Even if they were all in one place, they wouldn't be able to do much damage to most of the country before being contained.
1 in 8 being food insecure also is not high enough. Choosing less nutritious food options is a measurement of it, so you could still be eating, just not good food because you live in the middle of a food desert. Most folks in the US are not food insecure.
You're going to have to tick that number up to over half of the US not being able to eat once a day or more. Like the depression, or worse, but without any government assistance.
Sure hungry and starving are different. A large portion of our homeless have mental or drug addiction issues. They need help, but they're not going to start a civil war.
However, the empirical evidence linking individual income inequality and civil conflict is mixed.
No one is starting a civil war because their boss makes 3 times what they do.
The price of McDonald's has virtually doubled over rhe last 4 years, for no reason but greed.
Ok...you going to start a civil war over it? Almost 50% of the USA is obese...no one here is starving enough to start a war.
Yeah, there will be some domestic terrorist cells that pop up, but my bet is 90% of the people who want to participate would shit their pants and run the second bullets start flying.
Love how people don't know our history and presume that things are somehow more divided now than all the other times.
It's always been like this.
The first Civil War was started when slave states sent squads up north to round up "escaped slaves" which frequently included all black people in a town, even if they'd never been enslaved. The free states tried to stop this, and then the traitors threw a hissy fit and got their shit kicked in.
I can definitely see red states sending cops to arrest women fleeing to get an abortion, and free states trying to stop them and that leading to violence.
slave states sent squads up north to round up "escaped slaves" which frequently included all black people in a town
Wow never heard of this.
Robert Evans did a great series on how it might play out called “It Could Happen Here.” https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-it-could-happen-here-30717896/episode/the-second-american-civil-war-30751081/
Civil War? No. What is possible and already happening at State levels is following the direction of Hungry. Authoritarian judges, politicians are being installed across the US and progressive and even moderate laws being challenged. Roe vs Wade comes to mind. On the federal level we see the installment of far right federal judges and Supreme Court justices. All coming together to help install far right authoritarian in the executive and legislative branches. Yes, socially, Americans have been more divided in the past, but this time there's is a deliberate attempt to change the governance of US from the inside through brute force.
The US has a pretty severe urban / rural divide in most of its states, but I don't think it's enough. You'd usually need a pretty clean split along territorial lines for that.
You don't need a clean territorial split for a civil war. You just need clean lines of separation between different groups. There have been civil wars based on ethnic lines, religious lines, and even ideologies.
The wars without clear territory get messy. Like genocide messy.
There is a movie coming out in a few months about a US Civil War: https://youtu.be/aDyQxtg0V2w?si=oRudiMaKVQmBy2R_
Can't afford to take the time off work to fight a war. Unless the corporations will sponsor us.
No civil war. The transition to dictatorship and religious totality seems to go smoothly.
Civil war didn't happen when Gore "lost" on some technical bullshit, it's not going to happen anytime soon.
The funny part is, in twenty years, democrats will be doing the same historical revisionism to rehabilitate Trumb that you're now doing to rehabilitate Bush.
You really need your hand held to understand things? Gore wasn't a clown leader that lost the election and wanted to overthrow the government in a coup as a result, or called for an overthrow, or wanted a civil war, and Fox hadn't amped people up for 22 years. Understand yet? Not that you'll ever admit it, so cheers.
Mate, Bush was a clown leader that lost an election and did overthrow the government in a coup as a result.
And right wing shock media was absolutely in full swing back then.
Cause of civil war (you know, civil war was what was being discussed) is the loser calling for civil war genius. Why am I bothering, you'll never admit to anything. Cheers, enjoy the personal attack I'm sure you're going to do.
It's already underway and the cold civil war between Republicans and everyone else is one of the battle fronts. Ukraine is another.
You don't need the USA to be involved for a World War to start. If anything, a civil war in the USA could help spark one.
The peace built after World War II was mainly founded on American and Soviet force not intervening with each other, then American military dominance. Without a USA like power acting as a guarantor of the current international system, it is very likely that decades of pent up aggression will start to spill forward across the globe, including between other major powers.
Almost fucking did happen. If the Capitol Riots achieved what they were meant to, it almost certainly would have ended up with civil war, as factions of the government and military would divide between those who saw the coup as it was, and those who believe the big lie. Both of them would see eradicating the other as doing their duty to their country.
Nowadays? it's still a shitshow but it's the usual shitshow. It's moving away from the possibility of civil war.
I sure hope you're right. If enough of the country hasn't realized this dude isn't on their side, we will see a dictatorship unfold, with all the bells and whistles that come with.
Where two groups who are diametrically opposed to one anothers' ways of life must share a home, war is inevitable.
This. Another Jan 6th is the best we can hope for at this point. If Trump wins, it will be much worse than the first time. If he loses, but wins the coupe, then we get a civil war. I don't like how 2 of the 3 options are a national shit show as opposed to a failed insurrection (best scenario at this point).
I don't think Trump has the political capital to stage a successful coup at this point.
Even those that still believe in the big lie would be hesitant to join another coup attempt. They've seen how the Jan 6th attempt failed and how the participants have fucked around and found out. Donny did not protect them like they thought he would. Not to mention he only uses his own Truth Social now, which kneecaps his reach when compared to his old Twitter account.