Second American Civil War General

What will a Second Civil War in America, if it ever happens, be like?
Pic related is a map you can use for reference.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (4200x3105, 735.26K)

Other urls found in this thread:

Area 51 raid -> ICE raid -> Soviet Reunion

It won't be that kind of war. It will be more like the Irish Troubles but on steroids, with the main groups being fascists against liberals and centrists defending the establishment and a few sects of leftists that think it's expediant to either align with the liberals or fight against fascists independently, in which case it would be more of a 3 way terrorism/counterterrorism conflict but that depends on if leftism in the US continues to grow considering it is still very much a small minority right now. I am confident that it would not so much be large territories controlled and directly fighting, a certain level of civil society will be maintained throughout and it will take a while for people to even realize it is a war after a year or so of being inconvenienced by bomb threats and hearing about police conflicts with fascist strongholds. I don't see much hope for leftism in this budding conflict regardless.

The country is a powder keg right now and its only historical blindness that lets Americans think extreme tension, polarization and pseudoviolent political theatre can continue forever without spiralling. Combine that with bipartisan erosion of social services, US world dominance waning and the economy wavering and you have a powder keg that's going to end with cells of Zig Forumslacks bombing liberal campuses and antifa being dirty work shock troops for centrists that will never allow any real leftist political power to form. MAYBE in the chaos there will be some opportunity for robust socialist serve the people programs to fly under the radar and win popular support in big metro areas.

Attached: image.jpg (620x330, 50.17K)

Better map tbh

Attached: US_2030.png (4200x3105, 527.1K)

It would either be a situation similar to the troubles, a short coup lasting only one or two days, or a nuclear war that would level the country and produce enough fallout to encase the entire world many times over.

If you think that will happen by 2030 you’re an idiot. The US would just build a pipe system to drain water, like they did in New Orleans.

The government wouldn't nuke its own civilians. If they did, other countries would get involved to "free the American people from tyranny."

What makes you sure? Kulaks deliberately caused mass starvation in the past. It wouldn't be a big step for porky.

All i’m hoping for is that the Chinese clean up afterwards and give us +500 Autism Level

Attached: B8185DBA-41AC-47B5-A348-34B9DDEEF7D5.png (750x1334, 641.91K)

America collapsing would be fairly likely to send waves that brought down the rest of the world as well, IMO. It's fun to think about though. I wish we had a Shattered Union remake with maybe deeper politics/diplomacy aspects.

Attached: dmz comic.jpg (600x912, 108.06K)

No but a militia could take control of some silos somewhere in Montana, and once the first bomb drops, the rest fall.

Ive considered writing a utopian-noir novella about the US collapsing following the eruption of Yellowstone and China and Russia de facto puppeting many remainders, with some of the Chinese controlled regions taking the communist propaganda and Redbux better than their Beijing handlers expected and actually forming successful city-wide communes without Chinese style corporate characteristics, specifically in the mid-atlantic and south, with a protracted peoples war raging still in Appalachia. Utopian element isnt that everything is perfect but that almost everything is much, much better, and there's a sort of pleasant irony seeing the Federated Communes of the Mid-Atlantic squabble over small ideological differences like whether or not the Liberty Bell should have its image recuperated, meanwhile the workers do really control their workplaces and everyone has enough of whatever they need while rebuilding their neighborhoods, cities, and towns. The noir conflict comes from a string of rape-murders meant to constructively challenge the idea that true, effective communism will stamp out human evil for good.

Because global famines, and hundreds of millions of people dying is Utopian.

It's a couple generations after that occurs and it's socialist-utopian in its themes, and also some major world shaking event is necessary to explain the rapid decline of the US without getting bogged down in loredump framing geopolitics that are besides the point. Star Trek is certainly utopian and in its history there's a full on nuclear holocaust and 2 eugenics wars.

Yellowstone isn’t erupting anytime soon unless someone “detonates” it on purpose.
Though this is off topic i’ve always wondered if there would be a way to stop the ash clouds from btfoing all of earth, what if we all point fans towards the volcano?

Why? Not trying to shit on your volcano parade, but you could alternatively make some subtle/vague references to political turmoil in the U.S., a la a new American civil war/return to isolationism, etc.
Yellowstone isn't necessarily a bad idea, I just think there's some potential for more interesting narratives regarding the fall of the premier superpower of the last decades than simply "a supervolcano blew up".

Cheers for actually planning to write a novella, though. It's beyond what I'd bother doing myself.

I considered that and I'm not necessarily set on this route, and since it's just background framing it'll stay subject to change. My worry was that a big event would undermine the idea of revolution truly being an act by the workers for the workers, but I'm leaning towards supervolcano because it is such a handwave and US political turmoil leading to independent leftist governance would either seem very implausible given our current situation in the US, or require so much background explanation that it would defeat the purpose which is meant to be a believable portrait of a functioning communist society, potential blemishes and all, with the point being that those inevitable blemishes don't undermine the fact that things are genuinely much better.


And as far as global background that might just be as much depth as I want

I'm sure, but it's a handwave plot device for speculative fiction so I'm not too concerned about that

Bad phrasing here on my part, wouldn't defeat the purpose at all but would be out of the scope of what I'm trying to do which is something relatively short and focused.


Attached: stopit.webm (640x360, 166.7K)

I listen to podcast called it could happen here about how the American civil war could break out and what it could be like

If one side is heavily based in rural areas they're probably going to get wrecked like the Free Syrian Army. This isn't China in the 1930s where a rural base is going to get you very far.

Well-organized cities and tightly-knit minority groups that band together would probably fare best. Middle-class suburban people would get wrecked.

The principle reason why I don't think something like this is likely to happen, even in a big crisis situation, is that the American population is just getting too damn old. We're not Japan yet because the U.S. allows immigration to varying extents but nevertheless:
Once you start getting into your thirties, if you don't actively work to stay in good shape you're going to age out of being able to do very much hard physical stuff pretty quickly – especially with the American lifestyle and diet. You can dress up in a fancy outfit but you're not going to be of much good if you can't run down the block.

Like that Dallas shooter from a few weeks ago? Who attacked that courthouse? He was in his early twenties and could barely tie up his boots. No surprise he got plugged by the cops and bled out in the parking lot. A lot of Americans also have a lot to lose – like how quickly did the alt-right evaporate after making all kinds of "race war durr we're gonna kill you" threats after people just started getting doxxed? Like if all it takes to abort the boogaloo is losing your job at Dick's Sporting Goods then there probably wasn't ever going to be a civil war in the first place.

Attached: Fatty7.jpg (432x567, 81.16K)

No they wouldn't. Why do you think all the retirement homes are in Florida? So that when the floods come they'll wipe out all those pensioners, boost profits.

baboons breaking out of their zoos

it's going to be horrific

No actually, rural areas are where all the oil and natural gas wells are. in addition it’s where most of the armories are. Modern wars are determined by who has the most tanks and plaines, and who has enough oil to use them. This is assuming that it wouldn’t devolve into a nuclear war.

Compared to the size of the US economy, building a pipe and dyke system and seawalls to keep out the water is pennies.

Not when Katrina and Perfect Storm-sized hurricanes and greater batter the eastern seaboard every other year. The cost of building dykes and levees rises extensively when you factor in disaster preparations, and the consequences toward not preparing for such are enormous.

This. American here, attitudes are definitely changing. I've been seeing more and more non-violent people becoming sympathetic to it, especially as this new election cycle heats up. Mark my words there WILL be a major, politically motivated shooting or catastrophe before the year is out or next year. Abortion and immigration are both topics that people are now literally, unironically willing to fucking kill for it's insane.

American here, how is there supposed to be a civil war when actual leftists like ourselves are very few and people who like Bernie usually dont like guns? Also I believe if there is going to be one it will have to have to happen at the time of the this recession coming up and polarized election. Lack of belief in the capitalist democratic system and more reason to fight then ever with terrible economic prospects. Still though I just dont think we are polarized just yet but I could be wrong.

It wouldn't a war between left and right wingers, silly. It would be a war between liberals

Liberals wont fight though, so it has to be left vs right. I'm not saying antifa cant rough up some nazis but an organized army or even small group of ~50-100 right wingers with AR 15s should beat them in virtually all combat situations. Until the left gets strengthed by the the recession and under goes a major change we won't get any Stalingrad siege in Chicago or any sort of formal engagements. Also cant we win by just using bullshit maneuvers like printing lots of money and releasing it batches?

This. See

The absolute state of analysis on this board. How the fuck do you think this works, it's not like they'll be organizing militias in the Starbucks, the majority of the current police, military and establishment will remain liberal with certain covert and probably a few overt but quickly crushed or pushed into hiding breakaways for the fascist/reactionary libertarian side. Once white supremacist and nativist reactionaries start bombing campuses and progressive liberal politicians houses the FBI, police, and military are going to be defending the status quo and entering what will likely be an extended counterinsurgency campaign in defense of liberal-democracy.

New Orleans has a good pipe system and it’s had plenty of hurricanes.

Take your meds Zig Forums.

Abortion and immigration are both topics that people are now literally, unironically willing to fucking kill for it's insane.

No, it's beautiful. Liberating even.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 64.77K)

You underestimate what the collapse of American hegemony would do to USA. Or how many trillions of dollars are outside the USA, in reserve currency around the world. Or what the hyperinflation would do to a people.

Maybe, but it would be a relatively slow slide out of hegemony over a couple generations. Still a very significant decline in quality of life and accessibility of luxuries of course, with larger and larger portions of the country becoming effectively 3rd world, and yeah maybe you're right that this alone and the preoccupation of the military and alphabet soup with the clear and present danger of right wing seperatism and terrorism might be a huge opening for leftists. But idk it seems hard to predict these things in large part due to US hegemony being largely unprecedented both in its scale and depth. Not saying I think the US will last forever on the top, or even another two decades on the top, but there isn't a historical precedent that is easily mappable onto potential American decline.

No, it's just that each moment of history contains so many changes in the way systems of organization and dominance function and those changes are going to be utilized for all they're worth by new powers so we can't draw a straight line from the collapse of the British, Ottoman, Roman, etc empires in trying to imagine how this one will look

Ok but let's talk about how Burgerland would split,
East and West Coast: Liberal
Midwest: Turns into a contested area, maybe the industrial areas could be left wing zones.
South: Fash?

Why would the state attack the Nazis/Reactionaries? If the conditions are created for a 2nd civil war, you know lack of belief in the system as a result of the polarization and shitty economy. If anything shouldn't it be more like this: After elections people are unhappy with this outcome. Splits people even more. Sets the groundwork for the conflict. Eventually the protests and attacks from it become more and more violent until we start to see uprisings. This all happens while the economy is fucked after the recession making it only more of an option for unhappy people. We slowly start to see the government show its form as the dictatorship we know it as and finally the real fight starts. I mean just an idea though if WW3 does happen with Iran, I imagine this whole thing would be not accurate at that point it gets a lot more complicated. I think the idea of some nazis bombing shit for a while without some sort of equal or greater reaction on the actual left isnt possible

I swear this board has gotten stupider.

And you're wrong, because a massive portion of the country, maybe close to half, let's say 30%, would approve of fascist, reactionary, and Christian fundamentalist terroristic violence. There is not nearly a matching group for leftists. The American "left" is just people who take liberal-democracy seriously to any extent and don't think it's okay to bomb abortion clinics or lynch black teenagers for being out last curfew. They are more and more not defined by any positive ideology but the preservation of the status quo, rule of law, total denial or pathetically naive misrepresentation of the inherent contradictions in US society. This is not any real left. These people will just have most of the police and military formally on their side with a lot of reactionary militants operating from inside the police and military to look the other way on independent right wing projects, smuggle out guns and drugs to sell, help facilitate terror attacks. Alphabet soup and loyalist heavy contingents of the police and military will be defending the liberal-democratic status quo against extreme right wing sabotage, civil unrest, and terrorism. Yes, of course alphabet soup and the US itself are also the extreme right wing, but there is still a meaningful difference between Atomwaffen and the FBI in their goals, how they reach them, their general responsibilities etc.

Actual leftism in America, as in people with half decent revolutionary socialist principles, is probably at absolute most like 2% of the country, probably much less. And that's not even the people willing to act on those principles. As far as future civil conflict is concerned, American leftists are right now a nonentity. That doesn't mean there would be no leftist involvement, but it would be like the involvement of abolitionists and socialists in the first American Civil War – relatively few partisans punching above their weight and doing good things but also serving as effective cannon fodder for an uninvolved and uninterested more powerful party leveraging their ideogical advertisement and heroism but selling them down the river as soon as the battle is won. This would look like semi-legitimized antifa/black/Mexican defense militias and lots of demonstrations and political theatre, maybe a medium profile assassination here and there. But while I'm not writing off the potential for such a conflict to serve as a leftist opportunity for building real power, at the present in the US we just do not have real power, we wouldn't have a real "side."

It would not split like that you fucking troglodyte, no civil war has even looked like that for almost a hundred years and that's in countries with far more definitive regions and fully seperate ethnicities than the US. The wealthier part of a moderately sized residential town in Oregon, Texas, and Vermont are all roughly similar. Poor rural towns along an interstate are roughly similar whether they're in Pennsylvania, Arizona, or Florida. Ghettos are roughly similar whether they're in Cleveland, Savannah, or Albuquerque. I am not trying to minimize regional cultures and variation with have real significance and I would like to preserve and emphasize above the cancerous unified American national identity, but the truth right now is that there is a roughly similar cultural hegemony that dominates the entire country, especially in terms of political attitudes and alignment which are similarly split along delusionally simplified American liberal/American reactionary lines wherever you go. Christians fly Confederate flags in what were once strongholds of Christian Abolition. The only reasonable secessionist scenario I can see is that in the case of such a rapid descent into civil unrest, California and Texas shake hands one last time to agree to secede for their respective agendas and due to their inordinate military and economic power the Feds can't stop both of them and then maybe their neighboring sympathetic states join them. Still, this doesn't seem especially likely given the way circumstances look now. And regardless, you can't do this /gsg/ scenario of coloring in what blobs go to what ideological side because it just makes no sense in terms of the current reality of the United States or really any civil war in the past century.

This is a really good point I never consider basic factors like this that make or break the chances of these huge historical shifts happening. Good post user.

Like hell they won't. Liberals are bloodthirsty maniacs. You underestimate them.

There are some big inland bases but a lot of the U.S. military is based along the coasts particularly California and Virginia.

Your main point is wrong, however. Modern wars are not determined by who has the most tanks and planes, but who has the most willingness to fight – like all wars ever. The right-wing I think is a paper tiger that talks big, and the fact that they talk in such an amped-up way makes me think they will lose, because underestimating your enemy is the first mistake any losing side makes in a conflict.

You're missing the point. It's not that it's expensive to pump the water. It's that they want the seniors to drown because paying their pensions is expensive.

tbf in the Spanish Civil War a lot of tepid leftists and even rightist generals joined the Communist party and some radicalized. Once you capture state power people change their consciousness because you now control the resources. Not that it worked in the SCW but it's still possible to use libs and create a body of loyal reds in the govt

Wasnt that the other around tho? A socialist republic in power? Of course in a time of war people are going to go with the side that is both stronger and more decisive and also in power.

Yeah i think your right but the Communists had a large influence in cabinet and various ministries and their membership swelled massively as they were seen as strong and decisive as you said

America is too strong to shatter into Africa-tier violence, despite what the broken shit-eaters fantasizing about a pre-Western tribal liar world fantasize about.

The strength that upholds America isn’t the government, it’s the people’s pride. Superior peace has made America relatively honest and distinctly scientific among the nations of Earth.

Say this is sarcastic right now

Are we talking about the same nation that puts corn syrup on everything?

Attached: 1563205160127.jpg (1242x940, 184.22K)

citation need

not the guy you were talking to but here


Attached: kulaks5.png (598x349 171.9 KB, 66.45K)

Quantitative changes become qualitative changes. The absolute second American dollars can't buy oil, the countries will get rid of them.

You don't need to concern yourself with how it will look, because you already know what it will involve - war, this time with nukes.

Attached: 00b6d04431e5bc58a5ba1d85c5602edb019eda85bc86a89a82612e715e22d5d0.jpg (850x400, 54.68K)

Yeah, if you read my post without being a completely pedantic sperg you would see I agree with you

Serious question, if the kulaks owned their land how were they peasants? I understand that peasant is a specific economic relation not synonymous with rural poverty and that they could concievably make profit off of selling their surplus that goes neither to lord or their own subsistence, but I thought that that relation was that peasants were bound to the land that was generally held in common throughout the political domain? I have a minimal understanding of feudalism so the question might be misguided but what's the difference between a kulak peasant and the peasants Lenin is referring to as exploited by then? Did the kulaks just claim what was once the peasant commons as their own property, or was there some official recognition under the Tsarist/Provisional governments that the property actually belonged to them?

I really hope not. In your understanding, how were empires like the British and French able to slink behind the waxing power of the US without being destroyed? Because their relatively slow slide into obscurity and weakness is more what I was expecting for the US, tho as I said at some point above I understand that the situation for the US is relatively unprecedented in terms of both nature and scale.

On the kulaks there was the "freeing" of the serfs and land reforms in the 1870s or so I think

Soypocalypse Now

2nd American civil war would be right wing rural insurgencies doing Shining Path tactics and left wing urban guerillas doing PIRA tactics with the government floundering about. It would be like Syria but worse because Anerica's the world's breadbasket so famine would crack the entire world.

Not the poster you're referring to, but in the case of the UK and France, there was a new stable (and beneficial) system to integrate to, backed by US. There's no such system now. In addition, both of them had to be humiliated in stupid imperial wars one last time before they could believe their time was over.

I don't see the US going to war though. There's no foreign war that could really help them, at least for long. US will lose its allies as it declines which will make pursuing large scale foreign wars a logistical nightmare. The last time the US fought a major war against something close to an equal, it could ferry its troops in relative safety across the Atlantic to a secure base of operations before even proceeding. Whatever stupid adventure the US wants to get involved in, I believe Europe will stay out of it. So a war with Russia isn't a likely option. Maybe I could see a war with China, but only if Japan and Australia are willing to back them up, and I'm not even sure about that. I don't think people fully realize how costly, difficult and unpredictable an offensive war is, especially across oceans, doubly so when you have to do the whole thing (or most of it) by yourself.

Then there's the question of public support, which is an absolute necessity in modern mass warfare. There's simply no country or nation the Americans hate as much as they hate each other. If US goes to war, it will end very bad for them. I have a hard time believing they'll even try. The initial stages of the war with, say, China would already be extremely costly for them, most likely involving a string of humiliating defeats. So any idea of "foreign enemy to unify the nation" will backfire hilariously, and swiftly.

Even though you are a Maoist I would venture to say that you're pretty close to home. The key of this is to suffocate the FED fitlh and let the Right-Wing and Left-Wing fighters build up strong. The Bloodbath will indeed anoint The World in a cataclysmic struggle that some would call a "revolution" thanks to the terrible foresight of this pathetic Top-Down Theory. Deus Vult may those who burn brightest with their righteousness find favor from Nature and The Spirits.

We are not in the Kaiserreich universe.

One thing to note about is I would hate to see large foreign armies on US soil. I can only imagine every somewhat strong country ever would love to scramble and take their peice of the pie. Like for an example if Russia would want to take Alaska back for resources or military importance whatever how would those people defend against that? Or Hawaii? I am also curious on how Mexico and Canada would react. I imagine since Canada and US are very similar the civil war would definitely spill over with the same thing happening there on a smaller scale. Last thing isnt the stakes infinitely higher in the case of the strongest military power ever? I imagine the power would be knocked out basically instantly and would look less like war more like surviving since cities will be abandoned, and like the guy earlier mentioned a group of old soldiers could find a missile silo to deliver chemical/nuclear and biological weapons on anyone who they don't like.

This is how some on the far right think the Civil War 2.0 will turn out.

I skimmed through it and it said to kill "pacifists". Lmao kill everyone who doesn't agree? At the end where it has the list of Military depots could be useful though.

If the depots are still there nowadays. Their manual was written back in 2003.

Chapter 5 (genocide how to) is useful in a know your enemy way.

Chapter 5 could easily be modified to be used against the fascists and other counter revolutionaries… food for thought.

end of discussion

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (399x234, 86.78K)

Britain is gone.
United States are gone.

What now?>>2953204

Maybe not in America, but it has chance of bringing a new wave of leftism around the world when Americans are too busy shooting each other and can no longer properly support their vassal states and contain revolutionary movements and countries through embargoes, infiltrations war and propaganda.

Attached: B5o0.jpg (552x368, 34.82K)

Who is going to be bringing them advanced military hardware? They wont have a saudi arabia to buy them thousands of TOW and Stinger missiles at $40,000 a pop. Even if a foreign government wanted to arm them, they would never be able to bring the weapons in.

All city folk on the east coast and and etc are gonna get fucked hard. Completely food insecure and too far from any farms.

doubt it. American ideology has already planted itself in Europe. The left is dying and people are flocking to Neo-libs or the far right.

I can see Russia funding fascists or even both sides to weaken USA, but that is not my main concern here.

If conflict in the US gets really bad to the point of all order eroding, I believe we will see Mexican cartels drumming up jeep-based high-speed armies just like in mid-east conflicts. I have seen years ago on a video what sort of scale of siege they engage between cartels, I shiver at the thought of them uniting and deciding to take Texas, up to Cali. They also will have Mexican population that has immigrated here support them.

Ultimately, we will see Chechen-tier warfare. Mexican cartels will most likely gut people on the spot just like Chechens gutted Russian conscripts.

I also believe the cartel and their government are linked in arms. Mexicans wouldn't mind taking their promised Aztlán territories, regardless what ideology they try to paint themselves.

Attached: Percent_of_Hispanic_and_Latino_population_by_state_in_2012.svg.png (1920x1210, 256.01K)

Yes, the world only consists of US and EU.

It's interesting how demographics correspond what I am saying, really scary. What if the cartels specifically directed people where to live with direct orders from their government? With the type of aggressive bullshit they're pulling with Spain, I wouldn't be surprised with a sudden takeover during a time of unrest.

Attached: The-location-of-Aztlan-in-the-Chicano-national-imagination-Corresponding-to-the.png (806x644, 100.37K)

The revolution has to happen in the developed world, brah

t. Marx

I'll admit South Africa seems remotely promising. EFF do come off as a bit too IDpol-ish tho

Lenin and Mao want to know your location

And where's the USSR and Maoist China today?

Aren't USSR and China examples that revolutions can happen and thrive in the developing world. This was the theoretical expansion to Marxism that Lenin provided for us. It sure would be nice to see a revolution in place like France or Germany, but people are bought off because of their place in the global capitalist food-chain, but that is also chancing thanks to neolibs and porkies starting to put more squeeze on the labor aristocracy to keep themselves afloat.

US setting itself ablaze would vastly the propaganda, infiltration, sanctions and risk of invasion that originates from the imperialist countries and would lift this weight from all revolutionary movements and countries in the developed and developing world. Not to speak of the chaos that presents opportunities.

Attached: ji4C.jpg (500x336, 51.17K)

Fuck the cartel. I hate the bourgeoisie but the people I hate more than them are Mercenaries and Drug Lords. If a atomic bomb hit my town and I lay half way between life and death melted on the ground I would get up just to fight them. On a real note though if people are dying and it looks like a modern plague from it wouldn't cartels and business its self start to fall apart? There is no way anyways in this scenario drugs made in Mexico in wasteland usa will make it that far anyways.

Oh yeah absolutely, should have mentioned that explicitly I was only referring to the US. In the case of US hegemony pulling back and allowing the world real sovereignty I expect a lot of positive liberatory movements and a lot of horrific genocide to start popping up. The latter not because the US is truly a benevolent peacekeeper or anything but because the world order they prop up elevates countles nationalists (Modi, Duterte, Bolsanaro) and neoliberal puppets beset by strong nationalist movements (Buhari, whatevers going on in Ukraine and Poland). Not saying that the decline of US empire would somehow be bad because these dominoes would fall with it, just an observation.