What if a liberal vs conservative civil war broke out in USA

[Ifreann]

I earlier suggested that Canada would quietly invade and seize control of America's nuclear arsenal. I was joking, but it does go to show how invested the world would be in this war. Depending on how crazy shit was getting, Russia and China might want to nuke the US rather than let America's nukes come under the control of patent lunatics(which is surely how both sides would look to the outside world). The UK and France might even let them, and America might be too busy civil warring to stop them. If it seemed like Trump had lost it and was leading the conservatives they'd nuke DC as well. The countries hosting American military bases and missile silos and what have you would have no choice but to roll in with their own police or military and take control of them, or at the very least surround them and keep the suddenly violent Yanks contained.


Ergo, starving liberals out of their cities isn't going to work.

---

Just pointing out that planes don't take weeks to cross the Atlantic or the Pacific.

Are you really suggesting that the UK and France would "let" someone, no ideological enemies, nuke their ally (or former ally by this point). That would be such an idiotic move that I would have never ever considered that as an actual option for this theory.

Why not? Better to allow strikes against American military targets than to let their massive nuclear arsenal fall into the hands of people who have inexplicably gone to war with everyone in their country politically opposite them. Nuke America now or whatever set of violent nutters win could be turning the nukes on you next.

[Torrocca]

I explained twice now this is getting irritating. By going around the city and cutting off the supplies going into it while the cities fall into disarray due to infighting and starvation.

You ignored me again so I'll say it again. They, being the conservatives, have, are in possession of, planes.

You ignored me again I see. I already told you in several paragraphs that much of the conservative interior does not need to be protected because they are not on the front lines. Many of the liberal strongholds are. That means they can move troops to areas that need to be defended whilst leaving areas not needing any defending less defended. By the way, the conservatives would already be at defensive/offensive lines before liberals are near completing defenses because, shocker...

They have planes. They can move troops across the country in a few hours.

1) A coastal city won't have much problem staying fed, though. Unless you wish to presume Conservatives dominate the coast and can blockade those cities?

2) Yeah, they have enough planes and enough airports to move every single shooter they need to all the airports in just hours. Never mind the fact that some companies might take their planes out of country to avoid the war.

3) But the Conservatives cannot adequately get on the frontlines of every city, which is where the frontlines would be. The only form of warfare they can conduct IS siege warfare, and they can't do it if they disperse themselves to every single city. They could only besiege one city at a time if they want to make any progress in a war. This would leave many of the Liberal cities free to move their forces out of city and either take over Conservative areas or attack the Conservative forces setting siege to another city from behind.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

Yea, almost all other nations don't have a navy big enough are even capable of sailing to the US coast line.

It's not that hard, shockingly enough, to put a trained soldier or two on a ship to protect it as well, or retrofit a ship with some turrets for protection. Again, foreign nations aren't going to take kindly to having their merchant vessels shot at by some assholes playing pirate.

It is however very difficult to hit multiple small fast moving target at sea with small arms, Iran's entire Naval doctrine is based on this and they plan on taking down destroyers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dORTqKRTaMs&ab_channel=IluySperry

[Republic Of Varra]

Are you really suggesting that the UK and France would "let" someone, no ideological enemies, nuke their ally (or former ally by this point). That would be such an idiotic move that I would have never ever considered that as an actual option for this theory.

Why not? Better to allow strikes against American military targets than to let their massive nuclear arsenal fall into the hands of people who have inexplicably gone to war with everyone in their country politically opposite them. Nuke America now or whatever set of violent nutters win could be turning the nukes on you next.

Yeah nuclear winter.

Yeah nuclear war.

Yeah kill millions of innocent people for no real reason.

Yeah have the biggest migrant crisis in the history of the planet.

Yeah let's just nuke everything and not just fund operations to take the weaponry ourselves.

That's why not. That is one of the most insane proposals to a country in disarray I have ever heard in my life. "Yeah let's just nuke it. That will surely not backfire."

[Torrocca]

It's not that hard, shockingly enough, to put a trained soldier or two on a ship to protect it as well, or retrofit a ship with some turrets for protection. Again, foreign nations aren't going to take kindly to having their merchant vessels shot at by some assholes playing pirate.

It is however very difficult to hit a small fast moving target at sea with small arms, Iran's entire Naval doctrine is based on this and they plan on taking down destroyers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dORTqKRTaMs&ab_channel=IluySperry

So what, now the pirates are suicide boats striking trade vessels?

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

Are you really suggesting that the UK and France would "let" someone, no ideological enemies, nuke their ally (or former ally by this point). That would be such an idiotic move that I would have never ever considered that as an actual option for this theory.

Why not? Better to allow strikes against American military targets than to let their massive nuclear arsenal fall into the hands of people who have inexplicably gone to war with everyone in their country politically opposite them. Nuke America now or whatever set of violent nutters win could be turning the nukes on you next.

Two words: Nuclear winter.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It is however very difficult to hit a small fast moving target at sea with small arms, Iran's entire Naval doctrine is based on this and they plan on taking down destroyers.

So what, now the pirates are suicide boats striking trade vessels?

That wouldn't be hard to do at all, rig up a bunch of boats with a bunch of tannerite or something and send them off to sink food ships and you can just starve the cities.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

So what, now the pirates are suicide boats striking trade vessels?

That wouldn't be hard to do at all, rig up a bunch of boats with a bunch of tannerite or something and send them off to sink food ships and you can just starve the cities.

Could even have them be remote control, it's not difficult these days.

[Torrocca]

So what, now the pirates are suicide boats striking trade vessels?

That wouldn't be hard to do at all, rig up a bunch of boats with a bunch of tannerite or something and send them off to sink food ships and you can just starve the cities.

You would need someone to guide those boats though, and I'm sure most if not all the people in America wouldn't be fanatical enough to go and do that.

[Ifreann]

Why not? Better to allow strikes against American military targets than to let their massive nuclear arsenal fall into the hands of people who have inexplicably gone to war with everyone in their country politically opposite them. Nuke America now or whatever set of violent nutters win could be turning the nukes on you next.

Yeah nuclear winter.

Yeah nuclear war.

Yeah kill millions of innocent people for no real reason.

Yeah have the biggest migrant crisis in the history of the planet.

Yeah let's just nuke everything and not just fund operations to take the weaponry ourselves.

That's why not. That is one of the most insane proposals to a country in disarray I have ever heard in my life. "Yeah let's just nuke it. That will surely not backfire."

What else do you expect the world to do when America's nuclear arsenal is falling into the hands of essentially genocidal rebels? Or an essentially genocidal government? Cross their fingers and hope the psychopaths don't turn their violence outward when they win? Pick a god to pray to that when a missile launch is detected it's headed for San Francisco and not Moscow or Beijing?

[Republic Of Varra]

I explained twice now this is getting irritating. By going around the city and cutting off the supplies going into it while the cities fall into disarray due to infighting and starvation.

You ignored me again so I'll say it again. They, being the conservatives, have, are in possession of, planes.

You ignored me again I see. I already told you in several paragraphs that much of the conservative interior does not need to be protected because they are not on the front lines. Many of the liberal strongholds are. That means they can move troops to areas that need to be defended whilst leaving areas not needing any defending less defended. By the way, the conservatives would already be at defensive/offensive lines before liberals are near completing defenses because, shocker...

They have planes. They can move troops across the country in a few hours.

1) A coastal city won't have much problem staying fed, though. Unless you wish to presume Conservatives dominate the coast and can blockade those cities?

2) Yeah, they have enough planes and enough airports to move every single shooter they need to all the airports in just hours. Never mind the fact that some companies might take their planes out of country to avoid the war.

3) But the Conservatives cannot adequately get on the frontlines of every city, which is where the frontlines would be. The only form of warfare they can conduct IS siege warfare, and they can't do it if they disperse themselves to every single city. They could only besiege one city at a time if they want to make any progress in a war. This would leave many of the Liberal cities free to move their forces out of city and either take over Conservative areas or attack the Conservative forces setting siege to another city from behind.

1) That argument doesn't apply for inland cities where there is quite a bit of them actually, in which could easily be choked out of supplies and be forced into surrender. And on that point, most of the military would side with the conservatives, so many of the naval units would probably be more than obliging to blockade and force a surrender out of coastal cities. Also accounting for the air force that the conservatives would have dominance over the cities.

2) I never said they would move all the troops in a few hours. I said the planes can move fast enough for transporting troops in a few hours. This would be about a week to a month's worth of progress while setting up defenses would take much longer. Not only that, but if the airplane companies simply cannot get to their planes because, you know there's a massive war going on, they could easily be re-purposed to send troops to the battlefields and the frontlines.

3) Okay I might as well quit this argument because you ignore everything I have to say about combat. They would not invade cities, they would go around and restrict the flow of materials and goods into said cities, and would not siege a city. They would simply wait it out until the city surrenders due to the lack of food, or falls into disarray and simply moves on to the next.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

Yeah nuclear winter.

Yeah nuclear war.

Yeah kill millions of innocent people for no real reason.

Yeah have the biggest migrant crisis in the history of the planet.

Yeah let's just nuke everything and not just fund operations to take the weaponry ourselves.

That's why not. That is one of the most insane proposals to a country in disarray I have ever heard in my life. "Yeah let's just nuke it. That will surely not backfire."

What else do you expect the world to do when America's nuclear arsenal is falling into the hands of essentially genocidal rebels? Or an essentially genocidal government? Cross their fingers and hope the psychopaths don't turn their violence outward when they win? Pick a god to pray to that when a missile launch is detected it's headed for San Francisco and not Moscow or Beijing?

We literally let the USSR fall apart and didn't nuke them even though we feared they might start selling off their weapons to pay debt.

Besides, the Nuclear Winter it would cause would in the long run kill more people.

[Republic Of Varra]

Yeah nuclear winter.

Yeah nuclear war.

Yeah kill millions of innocent people for no real reason.

Yeah have the biggest migrant crisis in the history of the planet.

Yeah let's just nuke everything and not just fund operations to take the weaponry ourselves.

That's why not. That is one of the most insane proposals to a country in disarray I have ever heard in my life. "Yeah let's just nuke it. That will surely not backfire."

What else do you expect the world to do when America's nuclear arsenal is falling into the hands of essentially genocidal rebels? Or an essentially genocidal government? Cross their fingers and hope the psychopaths don't turn their violence outward when they win? Pick a god to pray to that when a missile launch is detected it's headed for San Francisco and not Moscow or Beijing?

Genocidal? When did anyone say anything about committing genocide? Where did that come from? This isn't a "kill all liberals" or "kill all conservatives" mindset. This is a one side acted up and caused a civil war so we're trying to stop it. Not to mention the countries themselves would literally be committing genocide by wiping out an entire country filled with over 300 million people. Not to mention all the international laws that would be broken. Not to mention the war with Nato and Russia that would obviously occur. Not to mention all of America's former allies in Asia would be furious and tensions with China could lead into a war there. There is so many downsides that it wouldn't be good for anyone to do such a thing.

[Ifreann]

Why not? Better to allow strikes against American military targets than to let their massive nuclear arsenal fall into the hands of people who have inexplicably gone to war with everyone in their country politically opposite them. Nuke America now or whatever set of violent nutters win could be turning the nukes on you next.

Two words: Nuclear winter.

Is a hypothesised result of many massive firestorms throwing vast amounts of soot into the atmosphere. Tactical strikes meant to decapitate America's government and destroy its nuclear weapons would not necessarily cause such an event. On the other hand, America nuking its own cities might cause a nuclear winter. All the more motivation for America's nukes to be taken off the table somehow in the event of such a massive civil war.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

What else do you expect the world to do when America's nuclear arsenal is falling into the hands of essentially genocidal rebels? Or an essentially genocidal government? Cross their fingers and hope the psychopaths don't turn their violence outward when they win? Pick a god to pray to that when a missile launch is detected it's headed for San Francisco and not Moscow or Beijing?

Genocidal? When did anyone say anything about committing genocide? Where did that come from? This isn't a "kill all liberals" or "kill all conservatives" mindset. This is a one side acted up and caused a civil war so we're trying to stop it. Not to mention the countries themselves would literally be committing genocide by wiping out an entire country filled with over 300 million people. Not to mention all the international laws that would be broken. Not to mention the war with Nato and Russia that would obviously occur. Not to mention all of America's former allies in Asia would be furious and tensions with China could lead into a war there. There is so many downsides that it wouldn't be good for anyone to do such a thing.

True, the Chinese would be pissed that we couldn't pay them back if we're nuked.

[Lorkhan]

Here is another question:

How are the conservative wargods going to lead their onslaught against the liberal nancy boys when the globalists control are fossil fuel resources? What are the right wing death squads going to do, make tanks that run on corn?

Considering the imaginations that overwhelm right wing radicals, there should be a lot more of them in our entertainment business. I've never seen fantasies that are so grand and magnificent.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

Two words: Nuclear winter.

Is a hypothesised result of many massive firestorms throwing vast amounts of soot into the atmosphere. Tactical strikes meant to decapitate America's government and destroy its nuclear weapons would not necessarily cause such an event. On the other hand, America nuking its own cities might cause a nuclear winter. All the more motivation for America's nukes to be taken off the table somehow in the event of such a massive civil war.

Never mind the fact that our silos are buried under ground in nuclear bunkers, you know, those things built to survive nuclear blasts.

An airburst over a city would spew far less into the atmosphere than a ground blast.

[Torrocca]

1) A coastal city won't have much problem staying fed, though. Unless you wish to presume Conservatives dominate the coast and can blockade those cities?

2) Yeah, they have enough planes and enough airports to move every single shooter they need to all the airports in just hours. Never mind the fact that some companies might take their planes out of country to avoid the war.

3) But the Conservatives cannot adequately get on the frontlines of every city, which is where the frontlines would be. The only form of warfare they can conduct IS siege warfare, and they can't do it if they disperse themselves to every single city. They could only besiege one city at a time if they want to make any progress in a war. This would leave many of the Liberal cities free to move their forces out of city and either take over Conservative areas or attack the Conservative forces setting siege to another city from behind.

1) That argument doesn't apply for inland cities where there is quite a bit of them actually, in which could easily be choked out of supplies and be forced into surrender. And on that point, most of the military would side with the conservatives, so many of the naval units would probably be more than obliging to blockade and force a surrender out of coastal cities. Also accounting for the air force that the conservatives would have dominance over the cities.

2) I never said they would move all the troops in a few hours. I said the planes can move fast enough for transporting troops in a few hours. This would be about a week to a month's worth of progress while setting up defenses would take much longer. Not only that, but if the airplane companies simply cannot get to their planes because, you know there's a massive war going on, they could easily be re-purposed to send troops to the battlefields and the frontlines.

3) Okay I might as well quit this argument because you ignore everything I have to say about combat. They would not invade cities, they would go around and restrict the flow of materials and goods into said cities, and would not siege a city. They would simply wait it out until the city surrenders due to the lack of food, or falls into disarray and simply moves on to the next.

1) This is largely assuming the military decides to side with what's clearly and obviously the aggressor of this conflict, with their aggressive nature making them seem more like rebels than anything else. In all likelihood, if the Conservatives are on the warpath, on a campaign of aggression, the military will go against them to protect the country itself.

2) This also depends on how many airports the Conservatives can get control over, as well as how many planes they can get control of. They'd still need to move lots of troops and, if they don't have enough airports or planes, would take more than just about a week or so.

3) The population in the United States that identifies as Conservative is roughly 122,132,000, or 38%. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say they can muster 5% of that into a fighting force - that's 6,106,600. The population of New York city alone is around eight million. Let's, for a moment, pretend they're all Liberal, and 5% of them are forming the military - that's 424,550 people. Now, part of cutting a city off from things like food and whatnot involves actually besieging that city. You can't just say, "oh well my troops are here for a day, now you're forever cut off from supplies!" because that's not how it works. You can't easily restrict the flow of resources into a city or the people out of a city without a siege in times of war. For a large city like New York, that would involve dedicating a huge portion of that 6.1 million strong force. New York isn't a walled city like cities were in the old days; you have to dedicate soldiers to the land area and the sea to adequately blockade it and constrict the flow of supplies. Again, doing this would require a MASSIVE dedication of forces; said dedication would allow all the remaining Liberal cities and whatnot to amass their forces, of which they'd have many available, to strike while the Conservatives were busy choking out a city.

[Ifreann]

What else do you expect the world to do when America's nuclear arsenal is falling into the hands of essentially genocidal rebels? Or an essentially genocidal government? Cross their fingers and hope the psychopaths don't turn their violence outward when they win? Pick a god to pray to that when a missile launch is detected it's headed for San Francisco and not Moscow or Beijing?

Genocidal? When did anyone say anything about committing genocide? Where did that come from? This isn't a "kill all liberals" or "kill all conservatives" mindset.

Isn't it? How else do you think it would look to the rest of the world for Americans to suddenly and pointlessly start killing each other?

This is a one side acted up and caused a civil war so we're trying to stop it.

It's literally not possible for either side to "act up". Liberals and conservatives are not united groups. This war could only happen if people just take it into their heads to kill anyone whose politics are different enough from their own.

Not to mention the countries themselves would literally be committing genocide by wiping out an entire country filled with over 300 million people. Not to mention all the international laws that would be broken. Not to mention the war with Nato and Russia that would obviously occur. Not to mention all of America's former allies in Asia would be furious and tensions with China could lead into a war there. There is so many downsides that it wouldn't be good for anyone to do such a thing.

You don't need to kill everyone in America to destroy America's nuclear arsenal. And besides, if America appears to be launching a nuclear strike of its own, not one is going to give a shit about international law or NATO or anything else.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

Here is another question:

How are the conservative wargods going to lead their onslaught against the liberal nancy boys when the globalists control are fossil fuel resources? What are the right wing death squads going to do, make tanks that run on corn?

Considering the imaginations that overwhelm right wing radicals, there should be a lot more of them in our entertainment business. I've never seen fantasies that are so grand and magnificent.

The Abrams can actually run on corn BTW, it was built to take basically anything combustible. Biofuel from corn would work just fine.

But just so you know, the US does actually have a lot of oil and natural gas. If a war started it would have to be rationed though.

[Ifreann]

Is a hypothesised result of many massive firestorms throwing vast amounts of soot into the atmosphere. Tactical strikes meant to decapitate America's government and destroy its nuclear weapons would not necessarily cause such an event. On the other hand, America nuking its own cities might cause a nuclear winter. All the more motivation for America's nukes to be taken off the table somehow in the event of such a massive civil war.

Never mind the fact that our silos are buried under ground in nuclear bunkers, you know, those things built to survive nuclear blasts.

Exactly why they need to be nuked if they're to be disabled. Or taken over by Canadian infiltrators, whatever.

An airburst over a city would spew far less into the atmosphere than a ground blast.

Setting fire to an entire city would produce less soot than bombing some patch of desert in Nevada?

[Republic Of Varra]

Genocidal? When did anyone say anything about committing genocide? Where did that come from? This isn't a "kill all liberals" or "kill all conservatives" mindset.

Isn't it? How else do you think it would look to the rest of the world for Americans to suddenly and pointlessly start killing each other?

This is a one side acted up and caused a civil war so we're trying to stop it.

It's literally not possible for either side to "act up". Liberals and conservatives are not united groups. This war could only happen if people just take it into their heads to kill anyone whose politics are different enough from their own.

Not to mention the countries themselves would literally be committing genocide by wiping out an entire country filled with over 300 million people. Not to mention all the international laws that would be broken. Not to mention the war with Nato and Russia that would obviously occur. Not to mention all of America's former allies in Asia would be furious and tensions with China could lead into a war there. There is so many downsides that it wouldn't be good for anyone to do such a thing.

You don't need to kill everyone in America to destroy America's nuclear arsenal. And besides, if America appears to be launching a nuclear strike of its own, not one is going to give a shit about international law or NATO or anything else.

The mindset would be reserved to "X group is taking over the country through politics therefore our group, Y, has to fight to stop this from happening." This has nothing to do with genocide whatsoever and any genocidal groups actually taking power at all is so small that it is near impossible for that to actually happen and occur.

And who said America was launching a nuke? Why in the world would they launch random nukes at other countries? You were suggesting preemptive strikes as to not allow a genocidal group to shoot a nuke (which is already near impossible for a group to actually take power like this), but now you're saying America would shoot first and no one would care about international law. A completely different argument from your other point.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

Never mind the fact that our silos are buried under ground in nuclear bunkers, you know, those things built to survive nuclear blasts.

Exactly why they need to be nuked if they're to be disabled. Or taken over by Canadian infiltrators, whatever.

An airburst over a city would spew far less into the atmosphere than a ground blast.

Setting fire to an entire city would produce less soot than bombing some patch of desert in Nevada?

Wouldn't be too effective, you may take a few of the silos but the warheads themselves could be anywhere.

And yes, an airburst will throw up less than a ground detonation. If you want to destroy a city you use an airburst, if you want to destroy a bunker you use a ground penetrating blast which will throw up much more soil.

[Torrocca]

Also, anyone insinuating that a city would capitulate within a week, especially a large city, forgets about perhaps the longest siege in modern warfare, the Siege of Leningrad. This involved, mind you, two professional armies during the greatest war in human history. Some untrained, inexperienced farmboys aren't going to succeed in one week what the Wehrmacht failed at in three years.

[Ifreann]

Isn't it? How else do you think it would look to the rest of the world for Americans to suddenly and pointlessly start killing each other?

It's literally not possible for either side to "act up". Liberals and conservatives are not united groups. This war could only happen if people just take it into their heads to kill anyone whose politics are different enough from their own.

You don't need to kill everyone in America to destroy America's nuclear arsenal. And besides, if America appears to be launching a nuclear strike of its own, not one is going to give a shit about international law or NATO or anything else.

The mindset would be reserved to "X group is taking over the country through politics therefore our group, Y, has to fight to stop this from happening." This has nothing to do with genocide whatsoever and any genocidal groups actually taking power at all is so small that it is near impossible for that to actually happen and occur.

It wouldn't actually be genocide because neither liberals nor conservatives constitute "a people". But when a war breaks out between liberals and conservatives, an actual shooting war, what will it look like if not each side trying to kill the other?

And who said America was launching a nuke? Why in the world would they launch random nukes at other countries?

They wouldn't. But if liberals and conservatives are at war, what happens when one side takes control of a nuclear missile silo? They nuke an opposing city? They nuke opposing military targets? They nuke another country? How can anyone know? MAD works because all involved are sane enough to want to stay alive and to realise they wouldn't in a nuclear war. But if two groups who aren't organised, aren't united, and don't have leaders suddenly go to war across the entire US for no reason and with no goal, no one is going to take the chance that these people are all sufficiently sane. America's nuclear arsenal would need to be kept out of the hands of both sides.

You were suggesting preemptive strikes as to not allow a genocidal group to shoot a nuke (which is already near impossible for a group to actually take power like this), but now you're saying America would shoot first and no one would care about international law. A completely different argument from your other point.

The whole fucking scenario is absurd and impossible. It can only lead to absurd and impossible outcomes.