[_Q_]

Originally Posted by New Era

NSFW!

A civil war is highly unlikely. If anything it will be an uncivil war, not following traditional conventions and likely a guerrilla style engagement between militias, and like minded individuals, in an effort to disrupt and cause confusion. The separation that currently exists in the political mechanisms makes this type of engagement very possible with potential for a reasonable degree of success. The effort would be to divide and conquer through psychological means.

The intent of any engagement is to build on displeasure or distrust of government and society structure/institutions. The table is really set in the US for some type of "disorganized uprising" that would strike at the foundations of government. The drivers are very simple and have been the cause of many changes in nations around the globe. For instance, here are six reasons why social unrest could easily develop.

1. The tilted playing field. The top 1% has been doing great and continues to receive windfall after windfall. The 99% not so much. There comes a point where the public tires of eating the crumbs of the cake they have been promised. The system needs to change, and it will only change through dramatic means.

2. Property rights. Corporations have bought up the majority of farms across the United States. Corporations control what can be planted by the others. Control over one's property has been assumed by private interests, and the people need the government to break this grip. The current governments are doing nothing to loosen this grip. They are actually cooperative in choking out the remaining property owners.

3. Greed isn't good. This goes back to the 1% and their control of the economy. The middle class has been pretty well choked out. Without a healthy middle class a country is ripe for social unrest.

4. Failure of law and order. When the people don't believe the mechanisms of law and order are working for them, they will take it into their own hands. Law and order is very much questioned in this country. The abuses of blacks and browns at the hands of law enforcement has greatly impacted the level of trust toward this institution. Trump's continual attacks against the FBI have eroded the trust in this institution as well. Couple that with the failures of law enforcement to quash recent events in Nevada and Oregon, and the belief is the rule of law is weak and incapable of maintaining order.

5. Failed Public Services. Infrastructure in the United States sucks. Every man and his dog knows this and have been demanding improvements for the past three decades. Confidence in the government to get these big issues resolved is again at an all time low. The guys running the show in Washington and at the state legislatures have done a great job at eroding public confidence and trust in the very institutions they maintain.

6. Weakness in government, both local and federal. Governments have been polarized in the United States and created gridlock at getting serious issues addressed. Only the most inconsequential issues are addressed, and only those that help the few. Government is pretty well viewed as being broken in the US, so distrust in the institutions are at an all time high.



First, the "US military" would not be called up to quell any sort of localized engagement. The National Guard would be the response, and only after a prolonged engagement that local and federal law enforcement proved incapable of dealing with. The weaponry associated with the "US military" would never be used to put down such a series of events. You will not see tanks or bombers used unless first used against military targets. The type of engagement we should be expecting are likely actions against local government institutions and critical infrastructure, all meant to cause chaos and disrupt the lives of common citizens. The intent is get people to question the ability of the local government to provide common services, and feed the distrust of government to provide promised services. Thinking this will be a traditional engagement where battle lines are drawn is crazy.

Should something like the US military get dragged into an engagement like this, they would have significant troubles of their own. A large number of the groups like Oathkeepers and Molon Labe are populated by military families and have developed their radicalized perspective while serving in the military. Also, the military bases are entrenched in the very same communities where some of their political identifications and militia groups hold sway. There is no guarantee the military would follow though in engagements where they may be battling family and friends.

Thirdly, the allies of the US would not get involved in any internal action. The US likely wouldn't want help anyways and would likely reject any offers for intervention. The US will deal with its own problems, even if it means eating its own.

I don't see a widespread traditional war, but I could see regionalized disruptions meant to further shake the confidence in institutions and leverage distrust of government to force change. Small changes can have great impact. Look at the Texas School Board for proof.

Good post. You bring up some interesting points that I hadn't thought about.

I'm still not convinced it can happen. There has always been maniacs down there threatening the end of times or whatever. I guess we'll wait and see for now, but I'm not holding my breath.

Is it bad that I'm hoping this happens though? The US is so messed up that only a hard reset so to speak will fix it.