More people starting to war-game tactics for a second civil war
Bookmakers now put the odds of a second civil war in the U.S. at 4 to 3. Those odds rise to 2:1 if the Democrats succeed in impeaching Trump--which, if you just listen to the Dems, is looking increasingly likely.
Which brings us to the topic of this piece: What's the point spread on the outcome of such a war.
Over at American Thinker, E.M. Cadwaladr takes a shot at this question.
As everyone knows, America has had the bitter experience of civil war. It was ghastly. But that war started 157 years ago, and obviously technology has changed hugely since then. To a great extent, new technology makes new tactics possible.
Another huge change is that in our only civil war to date, two armies faced off in conventional battle order, with artillery and conventional lines of massed troops. But in the coming war, unless the military splits roughly equally that won't be the case. Instead it looks like the two sides will consist of civilians armed with rifles and other small arms, with left-liberal city residents against conservatives and Americans living in smaller towns. Unless we have a Democrat president I suspect the military is likely to be relegated to a peace-keeping role.
And we've all seen how hard it is to "keep the peace" in scores of conventional wars around the globe: There are simply too many armed paramilitary units, and they know not to start shooting around the conventional military.
We've seen civil wars between urban and rural paramilitary units: the Spanish Civil War, with the leftists dominating the cities and conservatives controlling the countryside, and the war between Muslims and Hindus after the agreement that partitioned India and created Pakistan in 1947.
But perhaps the largest change between then and now has nothing to do with military technology as such. It's the fact that back in the 1940s little farms were everywhere. But now, only about one percent of the population farms. Thus urban populations are entirely dependent on an endless stream of trucks to deliver food every day.
In a war between urban dwellers and rural people, it won't take a think-tank to recognize that stopping or greatly restrictin this stream would put urban people into a starvation mode pretty fast. And it would be relatively easy to do.
A big unknown is how the Federal government would react. A glance at the electoral map will show that cities vote Democrat, and the rest of the country votes conservative. Even if a Republican is president, Democrats will understandably scream for the U.S. military to intervene to keep food coming into the cities. The question is, will the federal gruberment order the military to supply the cities?
Leftists denigrate their dependence on people who aren't on the Left--farmers, technicians, oilmen and so on. Judging from the ambush-style attacks of Antifa, I suspect the Left is likely to start shooting conservatives without regard for the predictable effects. Like no food.
Conservatives, on the other hand, would suffer from a shortage of new Hollywood movies. According to the elites of Hollywood, without a steady supply of new movies and rap songs, millions of conservatives would die of boredom.
Guess we'll have to see who's right.
Unless a Dem president and congress order the military to attack conservative paramilitary groups, it seems unlikely that the left can win. Since the Left hates the military, only a tiny fraction of them join the military, and fewer still have had combat experience. While thousands have experience in drive-by shootings, there's a world of difference between that and actual combat.
On the other hand, in cities other than New York City and Chicage (where there are no gun stores), urban Leftists will have access to all the guns and ammo contained in gun stores. By contrast, rural people will be limited to weapons and ammo they have before the shooting starts.
To a huge extent, the outcome will depend on whether the government orders the U.S. military to intervene--and if so, what percentage of the military will obey those orders. But even if the government orders the military to defend the Left, Vietnam taught that there aren’t remotely enough soldiers in the armed forces to control an entire country.
From commenters:
Having lived through the chaos under both Salvador Allende and Augusto Pinochet, I have a distinct feeling of deja vu, especially in the last six months or so. When the FBI, the CIA and the Justice Department have all been exposed to the people as totally corrupt, it's hard to believe the people will continue to support that government. One almost looks forward to the prospect of leftist social justice warriors--know-nothing movie and TV stars, professional athletes, musicians, media darlings, artistes, liberal journalists, former Obama officials, leftist federal judges and loud-mouthed-but-limp-wristed college kids trying to fight an angry mass of skilled-and-armed civilian warriors (not to mention combat vets and current enlisted men).
Members of my family were killed in Chile's revolution. I was shot myself. I wouldn't wish such a hell on anyone, but city dwellers--the Elite Left--still believe that the pen is mightier than the sword. They will die learning the truth.
===
Thank you for your perspective which really captures the absurdity of what is happening. The true Right is not weak- only exhibiting incredible patience with the scum who want to trade freedom for slavery. This patience is not without limitation.
===
Which brings us to the topic of this piece: What's the point spread on the outcome of such a war.
Over at American Thinker, E.M. Cadwaladr takes a shot at this question.
As everyone knows, America has had the bitter experience of civil war. It was ghastly. But that war started 157 years ago, and obviously technology has changed hugely since then. To a great extent, new technology makes new tactics possible.
Another huge change is that in our only civil war to date, two armies faced off in conventional battle order, with artillery and conventional lines of massed troops. But in the coming war, unless the military splits roughly equally that won't be the case. Instead it looks like the two sides will consist of civilians armed with rifles and other small arms, with left-liberal city residents against conservatives and Americans living in smaller towns. Unless we have a Democrat president I suspect the military is likely to be relegated to a peace-keeping role.
And we've all seen how hard it is to "keep the peace" in scores of conventional wars around the globe: There are simply too many armed paramilitary units, and they know not to start shooting around the conventional military.
We've seen civil wars between urban and rural paramilitary units: the Spanish Civil War, with the leftists dominating the cities and conservatives controlling the countryside, and the war between Muslims and Hindus after the agreement that partitioned India and created Pakistan in 1947.
But perhaps the largest change between then and now has nothing to do with military technology as such. It's the fact that back in the 1940s little farms were everywhere. But now, only about one percent of the population farms. Thus urban populations are entirely dependent on an endless stream of trucks to deliver food every day.
In a war between urban dwellers and rural people, it won't take a think-tank to recognize that stopping or greatly restrictin this stream would put urban people into a starvation mode pretty fast. And it would be relatively easy to do.
A big unknown is how the Federal government would react. A glance at the electoral map will show that cities vote Democrat, and the rest of the country votes conservative. Even if a Republican is president, Democrats will understandably scream for the U.S. military to intervene to keep food coming into the cities. The question is, will the federal gruberment order the military to supply the cities?
Leftists denigrate their dependence on people who aren't on the Left--farmers, technicians, oilmen and so on. Judging from the ambush-style attacks of Antifa, I suspect the Left is likely to start shooting conservatives without regard for the predictable effects. Like no food.
Conservatives, on the other hand, would suffer from a shortage of new Hollywood movies. According to the elites of Hollywood, without a steady supply of new movies and rap songs, millions of conservatives would die of boredom.
Guess we'll have to see who's right.
Unless a Dem president and congress order the military to attack conservative paramilitary groups, it seems unlikely that the left can win. Since the Left hates the military, only a tiny fraction of them join the military, and fewer still have had combat experience. While thousands have experience in drive-by shootings, there's a world of difference between that and actual combat.
On the other hand, in cities other than New York City and Chicage (where there are no gun stores), urban Leftists will have access to all the guns and ammo contained in gun stores. By contrast, rural people will be limited to weapons and ammo they have before the shooting starts.
To a huge extent, the outcome will depend on whether the government orders the U.S. military to intervene--and if so, what percentage of the military will obey those orders. But even if the government orders the military to defend the Left, Vietnam taught that there aren’t remotely enough soldiers in the armed forces to control an entire country.
From commenters:
Having lived through the chaos under both Salvador Allende and Augusto Pinochet, I have a distinct feeling of deja vu, especially in the last six months or so. When the FBI, the CIA and the Justice Department have all been exposed to the people as totally corrupt, it's hard to believe the people will continue to support that government. One almost looks forward to the prospect of leftist social justice warriors--know-nothing movie and TV stars, professional athletes, musicians, media darlings, artistes, liberal journalists, former Obama officials, leftist federal judges and loud-mouthed-but-limp-wristed college kids trying to fight an angry mass of skilled-and-armed civilian warriors (not to mention combat vets and current enlisted men).
Members of my family were killed in Chile's revolution. I was shot myself. I wouldn't wish such a hell on anyone, but city dwellers--the Elite Left--still believe that the pen is mightier than the sword. They will die learning the truth.
===
Thank you for your perspective which really captures the absurdity of what is happening. The true Right is not weak- only exhibiting incredible patience with the scum who want to trade freedom for slavery. This patience is not without limitation.
===
posted by SF at
4:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home