Second American Civil War

[Wamitoria]

Probably would go down much like the Salvadoran Civil War, albeit in reverse. I can't see the left starting a civil war in the US, so they would probably have the added benefit of international legitimacy and control over most important population centers. The right would have control over rural areas and possibly some cities, along with some devoted fans outside the US among the rabid anti-communist Asian and European right. The military would probably support whoever was in power for the most part, with a few mutinies and defections here and there by some enterprising lunatics.

It would be unconventional, asymmetric, and generally brutal. This isn't 1860. We aren't divided geographically in the same ways. Each side would act in an authoritarian manner, and it's likely that both sides would field unconventional forces through insurgency in some areas, partisan warfare in others, and terrorist actions all around. There would probably be minor escalation outside the US, with some attempts by each side to gain international support in the form of money and weapons.

[AETEN II]

It'll never happen, but even if it did, it'd be over pretty quickly. Seeing that all the gay sailors on the destroyers would have no problem shelling the south 8P

[The Republic of Lanos]

Any second civil war would not be a replay of the first.

NatGeo Magazine once said that if the Civil War was refought the way it was today, eight million would die today.

Just imagine this second civil war and how worse it could be.

[North California]

I'd side with which ever faction wants a Constitutionally limited government, and end to the wars, legalization of drugs and gay marriage, and an end to the corporatism. Basically, which ever faction wants to get rid of the past 30+ years of shitty government (yes, Obama and Bush are included in that).

[Unita Teccon Olympia Enclave]

First off why the South does it have to be them every time something like this tread is brought up.

[Blazedtown]

First off why the South does it have to be them every time something like this tread is brought up.

[North California]

First off why the South does it have to be them every time something like this tread is brought up.

The South gets a lot of bad rap here. It's really annoying and dumb, but after being on NS for almost a year, you get used to it.

[The Zeonic States]

With both sides having access to nuclear, Biological, And chemical weapons along with Navies, Air forces and standing militaries along with armored divisions the ulitmate victor would not be some thing to guess on by me, But i would be able to claim this, the Nation would not look the same after the war regardless of which side ultimately won, If one side did win, In my opinion a much more likely scenario is that the entire country goes third world and it ultimatly is won for either side by international aid.

This is of course assuming that both sides can rally signifcant militaries, as both North and South possess military bases and such, and i can picture the one's in the south going rogue to support their own faction just like they did in the original american civil war just on a much larger scale. it would not be remote wilderness bases that made the mistake of recuirting mostly locals to staff them, it would be thousands upon thousands of trained soldiers with access to what ever weaponry and equipment happened to be stored there at the time the flag changed hands.

Indeed if it ever did happen it would be a nasty war indeed, i would most certainly flee back to my native lands rather see the end of it, unless if either side had need of a private accounting firm and if that is indeed the case i guess we would be absorbed into which ever side needed it.

[Unita Teccon Olympia Enclave]

First off why the South does it have to be them every time something like this tread is brought up.

Its just so stereotyping to do that, say that just because their from the South, Means that they secretly plan against are government.

[Blazedtown]

Its just so stereotyping to do that, say that just because their from the South, Means that they secretly plan against are government.

Same reason people say the Germans will start WW3. And the whole "the south will rise again" crap.

[The Zeonic States]

First off why the South does it have to be them every time something like this tread is brought up.

The South gets a lot of bad rap here. It's really annoying and dumb, but after being on NS for almost a year, you get used to it.

Why do the south get a bad rep from the american civil war when most of the most horrorific stories get told from the Union stand point? I mean Sherman's march comes to mind along with the Burning of Nashville and a few other incidents that resulted in more civilian deaths and property damage then it did to the Confederate war machine.

[North California]

The South gets a lot of bad rap here. It's really annoying and dumb, but after being on NS for almost a year, you get used to it.

Why do the south get a bad rep from the american civil war when most of the most horrorific stories get told from the Union stand point? I mean Sherman's march comes to mind along with the Burning of Nashville and a few other incidents that resulted in more civilian deaths and property damage then it did to the Confederate war machine.

It's kind of hypocritical. It's wrong to say that all Germans are Nazis. It's just as wrong to say all Southerners are slave owning Klansmen.

[Norjagen]

A second civil war would be drastically different from the first. You would have 3 distinct fighting forces involved. On the side of the government, you would have loyalists in the military, and on the side of the rebellion, you would have the military forces that desert with their weapons, or possibly even unit commanders that desert with their weapons and men.

These first two forces would likely slug out the early stages of the war. Depending on which side garnered more support from within the military, the government would either crush any conventional resistance or be toppled by a military government.

Assuming that the government manages to put down any military uprisings, the war would shift gears into a more unconventional one. This is where the third fighting force comes into play. The rebellion would likely have no specific leader on a national level, with cells of individuals conducting insurgency operations and possibly terrorist attacks in their local areas.

The end result? The war would not, as some people claim, be over quickly. The conventional aspect of the war may be over swiftly, but it would be followed by a long period of severe unrest, which could last years or even decades. Insurgents would likely have no way to overthrow the government on their own, but once that "us and them" sentiment takes root, they would most likely live purely for the chance to strike out at the government however they could.

Once fighting for the sake of not giving up becomes the norm, you start to see situations like that in Israel, where the forecast is "Mostly sunny with a chance of explosions." Terrorist attacks by these insurgent groups would likely be made far worse by the preceding conventional war, with large amounts of weapons, from pistols right up to anti-tank weapons, tending to go missing and fall off of the grid.

[Blazedtown]

The South gets a lot of bad rap here. It's really annoying and dumb, but after being on NS for almost a year, you get used to it.

Why do the south get a bad rep from the american civil war when most of the most horrorific stories get told from the Union stand point? I mean Sherman's march comes to mind along with the Burning of Nashville and a few other incidents that resulted in more civilian deaths and property damage then it did to the Confederate war machine.

There's whole slavery thing. And the Jim Crow laws and government enforced segregation happening in living memory. And the South being assbackwards on things like gay rights and abortion. But other than slavery racism, sexism, and generally bigotry, I don't see why the South gets a bad rap either.

[The House of Petain]

First off why the South does it have to be them every time something like this tread is brought up.

Because some people are jackasses.

[North California]

Why do the south get a bad rep from the american civil war when most of the most horrorific stories get told from the Union stand point? I mean Sherman's march comes to mind along with the Burning of Nashville and a few other incidents that resulted in more civilian deaths and property damage then it did to the Confederate war machine.

There's whole slavery thing. And the Jim Crow laws and government enforced segregation happening in living memory. And the South being assbackwards on things like gay rights and abortion. But other than slavery racism, sexism, and generally bigotry, I don't see why the South gets a bad rap either.

Well you don't judge Germans because of the Holocaust do you?

[The Zeonic States]

A second civil war would be drastically different from the first. You would have 3 distinct fighting forces involved. On the side of the government, you would have loyalists in the military, and on the side of the rebellion, you would have the military forces that desert with their weapons, or possibly even unit commanders that desert with their weapons and men.

These first two forces would likely slug out the early stages of the war. Depending on which side garnered more support from within the military, the government would either crush any conventional resistance or be toppled by a military government.

Assuming that the government manages to put down any military uprisings, the war would shift gears into a more unconventional one. This is where the third fighting force comes into play. The rebellion would likely have no specific leader on a national level, with cells of individuals conducting insurgency operations and possibly terrorist attacks in their local areas.

The end result? The war would not, as some people claim, be over quickly. The conventional aspect of the war may be over swiftly, but it would be followed by a long period of severe unrest, which could last years or even decades. Insurgents would likely have no way to overthrow the government on their own, but once that "us and them" sentiment takes root, they would most likely live purely for the chance to strike out at the government however they could.

Once fighting for the sake of not giving up becomes the norm, you start to see situations like that in Israel, where the forecast is "Mostly sunny with a chance of explosions." Terrorist attacks by these insurgent groups would likely be made far worse by the preceding conventional war, with large amounts of weapons, from pistols right up to anti-tank weapons, tending to go missing and fall off of the grid.

In your scenario nuclear suicide attacks to come mind, It's not like North America has a shortage of nuclear warheads which could not be jury rigged into a make shift fusion bomb.

[Capitolinium]

There's whole slavery thing. And the Jim Crow laws and government enforced segregation happening in living memory. And the South being assbackwards on things like gay rights and abortion. But other than slavery racism, sexism, and generally bigotry, I don't see why the South gets a bad rap either.

Well you don't judge Germans because of the Holocaust do you?

No, because they're fellow liberals/socialists now. So, it's okay.

[Blazedtown]

There's whole slavery thing. And the Jim Crow laws and government enforced segregation happening in living memory. And the South being assbackwards on things like gay rights and abortion. But other than slavery racism, sexism, and generally bigotry, I don't see why the South gets a bad rap either.

Well you don't judge Germans because of the Holocaust do you?

No, but modern Germans don't run around with swastika bumper stickers and have learned from their past mistakes.

[North California]

Well you don't judge Germans because of the Holocaust do you?

No, but modern Germans don't run around with swastika bumper stickers and have learned from their past mistakes.

So are you saying that Southerners can't learn that slavery is wrong? And if there are some crack heads, is that justification to have all these rather offensive preconceptions about the South?

[Blazedtown]

No, but modern Germans don't run around with swastika bumper stickers and have learned from their past mistakes.

So are you saying that Southerners can't learn that slavery is wrong? And if there are some crack heads, is that justification to have all these rather offensive preconceptions about the South?

I'm pretty sure everyone in the south knows slavery is wrong. Its guys like Todd Akin, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum that give the South and Republicans in general a bad name.

[North California]

So are you saying that Southerners can't learn that slavery is wrong? And if there are some crack heads, is that justification to have all these rather offensive preconceptions about the South?

I'm pretty sure everyone in the south knows slavery is wrong. Its guys like Todd Akin, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum that give the South and Republicans in general a bad name.

Last time I check, Rick Santorum is Northern

But yes, guys like that give Southerners (and Republicans to an extent) a bad name.

[Norjagen]

A second civil war would be drastically different from the first. You would have 3 distinct fighting forces involved. On the side of the government, you would have loyalists in the military, and on the side of the rebellion, you would have the military forces that desert with their weapons, or possibly even unit commanders that desert with their weapons and men.

These first two forces would likely slug out the early stages of the war. Depending on which side garnered more support from within the military, the government would either crush any conventional resistance or be toppled by a military government.

Assuming that the government manages to put down any military uprisings, the war would shift gears into a more unconventional one. This is where the third fighting force comes into play. The rebellion would likely have no specific leader on a national level, with cells of individuals conducting insurgency operations and possibly terrorist attacks in their local areas.

The end result? The war would not, as some people claim, be over quickly. The conventional aspect of the war may be over swiftly, but it would be followed by a long period of severe unrest, which could last years or even decades. Insurgents would likely have no way to overthrow the government on their own, but once that "us and them" sentiment takes root, they would most likely live purely for the chance to strike out at the government however they could.

Once fighting for the sake of not giving up becomes the norm, you start to see situations like that in Israel, where the forecast is "Mostly sunny with a chance of explosions." Terrorist attacks by these insurgent groups would likely be made far worse by the preceding conventional war, with large amounts of weapons, from pistols right up to anti-tank weapons, tending to go missing and fall off of the grid.

In your scenario nuclear suicide attacks to come mind, It's not like North America has a shortage of nuclear warheads which could not be jury rigged into a make shift fusion bomb.

This is very much a possibility, but I also find it to be somewhat unlikely. With America's nuclear stockpile being arguably the most heavily secured of its kind in the world, things would have to fall quite far, quite fast for that to happen. I anticipate the government taking extensive measures to retain control over its nuclear weapons, and for such weapons to be removed, quietly, to more secure or undisclosed locations when their security is threatened, if not simply scuttled beyond use and disposed of.

Nuclear suicide bombers are plausible, yes, but it would take a breed of fanatic that I feel the US simply could not produce. While the middle east has been rife with clan warfare for thousands of years, any fanatically patriotic American would likely feel enough of a bond with their countrymen to forgo such wanton loss of life. This may not be true in all cases, but examine most of the, say, militia sorts in this country, and you will see a point of view that screams, "We're here to protect our country, even the folks that don't agree with us, and think we're a threat."

The use of nuclear weapons in conventional war would, of course, be a non-issue. I can think of no government, however fanatical, that would prefer ruling over an apocalyptic hellhole over losing its power.

[Norjagen]

Well you don't judge Germans because of the Holocaust do you?

No, but modern Germans don't run around with swastika bumper stickers and have learned from their past mistakes.

That would be highly illegal in modern Germany. Just throwing that out there. Anything regarding Nazist imagery and speech tends to result in a disproportionately harsh reaction from the current government. Not saying Germans are secret nazis, but even if they were, they couldn't express it, because they lack Americans' freedom of speech.

[Blazedtown]

I'm pretty sure everyone in the south knows slavery is wrong. Its guys like Todd Akin, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum that give the South and Republicans in general a bad name.

Last time I check, Rick Santorum is Northern

But yes, guys like that give Southerners (and Republicans to an extent) a bad name.

Its the fact that their belief systems get some much support in the South is why people have a problem with them. If they were just random assholes it would be different. But they are elected officials who receive lots of support.