2d US civil war is inevitable, get ready for it

[Anonymous 0]

Ranger One wrote:

If you know biology and chemistry, you can do far worse. Every damn red neck has heard of ricin, for example, made from castor beans. Abrin is made from a different plant and is 75 times more lethal. 10 lbs of abrin would be enough for 20,000,000 lethal doses.

Good spot on, Ranger One!

I think it’s one of the easiest ways to get WMD produced – and I think it’s the most undervalued WMD. It’s still deadly and effective, always was, always will be as long as it exists.

By the way, no protection from chemical weapons is granted. You can have antidotes to seeded diseases, you can survive nuke blast and fallout staying in shelter (except for something cobalt-57 like) but you cannot be immune forever to sarin, soman, mustard gas and so on. It’s perpetuated.

Biochemical weapons have been used by Japanese at the end of WWII, nukes has been used in WWII, but chemical weapons have been used only in WWI, and it scared the s~~~ out even from Hitler. Not any single side used chemicals on large scale neither in WWII, nor post WWII era, and I think that was for a reason.
Maybe in order to avoid bringing genocide on a whole different level? When nobody is safe? When even smallest enemy can bring it’s opponents on its knees?

[IRuleMeParticipant]

It’sallbs wrote:

PistolPete wrote:

as the Afgan war illustrates sometimes just having a large army doesn’t help,

So did The war in Vietnam and Cambodia.

We didn’t lose Vietnam because of firepower, terrain, or bad military strategy. We lost it on the TV’s. Once the liberals fed their bulls~~~ into the minds of the mass public, it was over. You can’t beat an army when your army refuses to fight.

[It’sallbsParticipant]

IRuleMe wrote:

We lost it on the TV’s.

blah,blah,blah stop believing your own country’s propoganda.

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[FrostByteParticipant 19005]

In all this rift there is voice of reason, and he is gaining a lot of steam.

If you rescue a damsel in distress, all you will get is a distressed damsel.

[FrostByteParticipant 19005]

deleted repeat post

If you rescue a damsel in distress, all you will get is a distressed damsel.

[Anonymous 7]

IRuleMe wrote:

It’sallbs wrote:

PistolPete wrote:

as the Afgan war illustrates sometimes just having a large army doesn’t help,

So did The war in Vietnam and Cambodia.

We didn’t lose Vietnam because of firepower, terrain, or bad military strategy. We lost it on the TV’s. Once the liberals fed their bulls~~~ into the minds of the mass public, it was over. You can’t beat an army when your army refuses to fight.

It’sallbs wrote:

IRuleMe wrote:

We lost it on the TV’s.

blah,blah,blah stop believing your own country’s propoganda.

To get really down to it, the constrained military strategy is what lost many wars.

This is directly related to the benefit of perception the government wants to portray to the people.

In appeasing the people the military weakens itself.

[SuggestiusParticipant 3312]

IRuleMe, Charles Colson – counsel to the Nixon Administration said
“This can’t be the United States of America. This is not the greatest free democracy in the world. This is a nation at war with itself.” It was time to stop the war. Becuase killing the Vietnam peasants turned into killing the US students in Kent and in Mexico. And the God knows where else.

Happiness for all and let no one be forgotten ("Roadside picnic", Arkady and Boris Strugatsky)

[Anonymous 7]

As an example: not being allowed to shoot until shot at.

There are numerous others.

Unleash full warfare with all tactical abilities while supplanting propaganda and it is a whole new story, or would have been in the “lost” wars mentioned.

[AstroParticipant 2045]

PistolPete wrote:

Thanks Nerevar; we tried that back in 1860 but the North wouldn’t leave us be then and they won’t now.

If the borders were drawn similar to the 1st Civil War, one would have to include states that didn’t exist at that time and most of them are not Progressive (I hate to use the word “Liberal” because they are not) states. Industry and population are also far more balanced than they were in the early and mid 1860’s. In the first Civil War, the South had no firearm industries and now have most of them. As before, the military would be divided. So as bloody as the 1st Civil War was (more than all our other wars combined), a 2nd Civil War would be even far bloodier for both sides. Tens of millions would die in a blood bath. I don’t know if the Anti-War Progressive States would have the stomach for it and I’m not even sure if the Conservative states would. I see the 2nd Amendment as a major factor in the lines being drawn and if so, it would go in our favor. Even some states in the Great Lakes might side with the South, just look at the map in the last election. Like I already stated, it would be those who are pro-Federal government versus Pro-Constitution.

[Ranger OneParticipant 16836]

If a rebel force was able to use a few nuclear weapons, they wouldn’t have to destroy the entire opposition… just the strategic targets and center of government. Whereas a full-scale rebellion could continue even after several cities were nuked by the establishment forces.

All my life I've had doubts about who I am, where I belonged. Now I'm like the arrow that springs from the bow. No hesitation, no doubts. The path is clear. And what are you? Alive. Everything else is negotiable. Women have rights; men have responsibilities; MGTOW have freedom. Marriage is for chumps. If someone stands in the way of true justice, you simply walk up behind them and stab them in the heart-R'as al Ghul.

[narwhalParticipant]

I don’t see much chance of a civil war. I understand that there are two sides that are far apart, but I think the number of people that are that strongly dedicated to a side is over rated. That group of people that just wants their tv and beer, I’d say is around 80% if not higher. Sure, people may talk on the internet, but I think the number of people who are willing to actually revolt is rather low. Most people have too much to lose in the US.

I don’t see the left having the desire to have an organized violent revolt. They are more the terrorist type I’d say. They are more likely to bomb a church they are likely to take over and try and control a section of land. They just aren’t built for that. Besides, that’s no way to get the government to give you hand outs.

The right could organize and take over land, but what does that really accomplish? How would they be able to hold the land? How would they be able to provide infrastructure? If they can’t provide infrastructure, how would they be able to maintain support.

You also have to factor in that the differences in ideology don’t line up with geography very well. Even in hotbeds of left or right, there is a significant presence of the other side. That complicates things. There is also huge infrastructure dependencies that limits just how polarized we can actually get.

I think things have to get much worse and much more desperate before an actual civil war erupts. Essentially, the costs way out weigh the benefits at this point.

Living in Texas, I’ve particularly looked at this from a Texas succession point of view. Even in the off chance that it could be done peacefully, there is still a s~~~ load of work to do to get it all done. You have millions of people migrating in and out of the new country. You have debates on a new constitution and laws. You thousands of companies that operate here and out of state. Regulate and control infrastructure. You have foreign policy work to establish. Re-establish trade. A military to establish. It goes on and on.

Things change drastically when people have nothing to lose. Reality is that Americans have quite a bit to lose at this point.

Ok. Then do it.

[Author]

Posts