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

[Greater Miami Shores]

Besides the titular question, what do you think would be the outcome?

I reckon it would end with a conservative victory. Not only they are most of the US population (the National Election Pool claims they are 35% of the population, as opposed to the liberal 26%), they also hold most of the firepower, with most soldiers, gun owners, weapon industry employees and militia members being conservative. As a result, the conservatives would likely gerrymander the voting districts to give themselves a high chance of ruling.

Yeah a Conservative victory. With President Donald J Trump, with all those military generals he has been appointing, 3 or 4 or so. Or the new Conservative Confederate States of America CCSA , and the Liberal LUSA. With a population transfer to both nations. Divided into the just about the same 2016 electoral college vote results:

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=gre ... /id=819590

[Dechen]

And I drive a hybrid.

Exactly my point.
Liberals and conservatives are normal people, regardless of political beliefs
So don't apply broad stereotypes. It just doesn't make a sense.

I also like you glossed over my point about international intervention. ;)

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

And I drive a hybrid.

Exactly my point.
Liberals and conservatives are normal people, regardless of political beliefs
So don't apply broad stereotypes. It just doesn't make a sense.

I also like you glossed over my point about international intervention.

We had discussed it earlier, the military leans red and as for international intervention no one else has a force capable of pressuring the U.S.

Messing in other nations affairs is what we do, no one else has the numbers or budget.

[Tekeristan]

Exactly my point.
Liberals and conservatives are normal people, regardless of political beliefs
So don't apply broad stereotypes. It just doesn't make a sense.

I also like you glossed over my point about international intervention.

We had discussed it earlier, the military leans red and as for international intervention no one else has a force capable of pressuring the U.S.

Messing in other nations affairs is what we do, no one else has the numbers or budget.

It isn't pressuring, it's just flying planes of guns in.
Something about having the logistical chains across the United States shattering to a thousand militias just doesn't spell good.

China, Russia, hell even Iran - they're all capable of piling guns into planes and acquiring bribe money.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

We had discussed it earlier, the military leans red and as for international intervention no one else has a force capable of pressuring the U.S.

Messing in other nations affairs is what we do, no one else has the numbers or budget.

It isn't pressuring, it's just flying planes of guns in.
Something about having the logistical chains across the United States shattering to a thousand militias just doesn't spell good.

China, Russia, hell even Iran - they're all capable of piling guns into planes and acquiring bribe money.

Getting weapons is one thing, knowing how to use them is another.

The cities also do not occupy a lot of airspace, a few SAM and interceptors provided by the red leaning military would serve as deterrent enough.

Not to mention it would be immensely difficult for any European or Asian nation to airdrop in weapons, most cargo planes don't have the range to cross the oceans without refueling.

[Tekeristan]

It isn't pressuring, it's just flying planes of guns in.
Something about having the logistical chains across the United States shattering to a thousand militias just doesn't spell good.

China, Russia, hell even Iran - they're all capable of piling guns into planes and acquiring bribe money.

Getting weapons is one thing, knowing how to use them is another.

The cities also do not occupy a lot of airspace, a few SAM and interceptors provided by the red leaning military would serve as deterrent enough.

Not to mention it would be immensely difficult for any European or Asian nation to airdrop in weapons, most cargo planes don't have the range to cross the oceans without refueling.

Most people, I'd say the vast majority on both sides, don't really know how to 'use' guns in a military manner. Learning to be a decent marksmen doesn't actually take long to train. You'd bet in this scenario that people would be training in their various local defense groups - probably against both 'libs' and 'cons'. It'd take much longer to mobilize to take a city than it would to train a militia. This is going to be split between neighborhoods, not large strategic movements.

Smugglers don't fly over cities dropping chutes, do they? It's drove, railed, walked, or so forth in. Even then, I actually doubt that if we're going to achieve the scenario of a mass-civil war between the current standard political leanings : the military has lost most control all over. If they hadn't, the military would be smushing both sides, not one.

Exactly, they refuel, or use ships, and so forth. Canada exists, as does Mexico. In fact the largest single land border exists between Canada and America. Unless you somehow state that we're somehow going to completely control the borders, when we can't do it already and then prompt this massive surge of civil unrest.

[Infected Mushroom]

The Blues have a stronger economy with more cities. However, the Reds have the allegiance of most of the military (most military personnel would be Reds politically); they've also got a more militant population (more religious, more familiar with firearms, tougher people in general). I imagine the Reds would be more motivated to fight and be more willing to stomach horrors (the power of the Bible belt and a more militant culture) whereas there would be more protests, divisions, and debates over rights and privileges in the Blue camp. That could prove decisive, a few bloodbaths get on Twitter etc and the Blues might come to the negotiating table.

Ultimately though, I think the Reds have the advantage. The Blues can't really hit any 1 major city early and call in a win and so a longer war is guaranteed. The Blues don't have the political strength to keep the war going for long despite having a bigger economy. The fact that most of the nation's best soldiers and commanders will join the Red camp will probably prove decisive. I expect the Reds can take a few major cities and force a win pretty fast. And if not, in a war of attrition Blue morale will run out fast. Liberals don't like long bloody wars; the Liberals in WWII and the American Revolution were one thing, the Liberals of today won't put up with "greater good" arguments. The Red camp though? Plenty of ideological room for that sort of stuff (power of the Bible Belt etc).

Red Victory 8/10

[Grand Jan Mayen]

Seeing how Conservatives love their guns, would probably get support from the US government (Because Trump is Pres, and Texas is Conservative, and texas has a crapton of oil along with alaska), and countries like Russia and China probably don't like the sterotypical US liberal it would be a Conservative victory without a slightest chance of Liberal victory

If the Conservatives and Liberals were fighting without any Government support, they (The Conservatives) would still win.

[Tekeristan]

The Blues have a stronger economy with more cities. However, the Reds have the allegiance of most of the military (most military personnel would be Reds politically); they've also got a more militant population (more religious, more familiar with firearms, tougher people in general). I imagine the Reds would be more motivated to fight and be more willing to stomach horrors (the power of the Bible belt and a more militant culture) whereas there would be more protests, divisions, and debates over rights and privileges in the Blue camp. That could prove decisive, a few bloodbaths get on Twitter etc and the Blues might come to the negotiating table.

Ultimately though, I think the Reds have the advantage. The Blues can't really hit any 1 major city early and call in a win and so a longer war is guaranteed. The Blues don't have the political strength to keep the war going for long despite having a bigger economy. The fact that most of the nation's best soldiers and commanders will join the Red camp will probably prove decisive. I expect the Reds can take a few major cities and force a win pretty fast. And if not, in a war of attrition Blue morale will run out fast. Liberals don't like long bloody wars; the Liberals in WWII and the American Revolution were one thing, the Liberals of today won't put up with "greater good" arguments. The Red camp though? Plenty of ideological room for that sort of stuff (power of the Bible Belt etc).

Red Victory 8/10

They thought the 'Blues' would quit the war out of inability to stomach it with the battle of Gettysburg, that the 'toughness' of the Confederates would crumble the more 'urbanized' north.

Trying to ride to victory on the fact that your enemy doesn't have the mental capability to 'withstand' war or trauma is foolish, and will probably blow up in your face once you face resistance that is somehow unexpected.
This wouldn't be a war of decisiveness, with big armies assembling and swiping through big swaths of territory and pinning shiny medals to each other's chests : this would be a war of neighborhood defense militias, car bombs, and the collapse of the Union into separate states. You can't tell who is on what side by just looking at them.

[Almanastan]

Unlikely that would ever happen in the first place, considering liberals and conservatives both defend the same basic interests and system in the end, just in different ways.

[Infected Mushroom]

The Blues have a stronger economy with more cities. However, the Reds have the allegiance of most of the military (most military personnel would be Reds politically); they've also got a more militant population (more religious, more familiar with firearms, tougher people in general). I imagine the Reds would be more motivated to fight and be more willing to stomach horrors (the power of the Bible belt and a more militant culture) whereas there would be more protests, divisions, and debates over rights and privileges in the Blue camp. That could prove decisive, a few bloodbaths get on Twitter etc and the Blues might come to the negotiating table.

Ultimately though, I think the Reds have the advantage. The Blues can't really hit any 1 major city early and call in a win and so a longer war is guaranteed. The Blues don't have the political strength to keep the war going for long despite having a bigger economy. The fact that most of the nation's best soldiers and commanders will join the Red camp will probably prove decisive. I expect the Reds can take a few major cities and force a win pretty fast. And if not, in a war of attrition Blue morale will run out fast. Liberals don't like long bloody wars; the Liberals in WWII and the American Revolution were one thing, the Liberals of today won't put up with "greater good" arguments. The Red camp though? Plenty of ideological room for that sort of stuff (power of the Bible Belt etc).

Red Victory 8/10

They thought the 'Blues' would quit the war out of inability to stomach it with the battle of Gettysburg, that the 'toughness' of the Confederates would crumble the more 'urbanized' north.

Trying to ride to victory on the fact that your enemy doesn't have the mental capability to 'withstand' war or trauma is foolish, and will probably blow up in your face once you face resistance that is somehow unexpected.

Except in the modern era this is true. Liberals of today, won't support any kind of bloody war effort on domestic soil. Some might, but there would just be way too much internal division (protests etc).

You're talking about pre-Vietnam liberals; I'm talking about modern liberals. They're more likely to protest the government for drafting them than to fight to the death against Reds. "Fighting to the death for a greater good cause" is a thing of the past with today's Blue camp.

[Stonok]

Whichever side controls the Military wins. It would take a tactical genius to win a Civil War against the military in the modern day.

[Infected Mushroom]

Whichever side controls the Military wins. It would take a tactical genius to win a Civil War against the military in the modern day.

The Reds

Most of the military is Republican

they'd get the cream of the crop of the military in addition to civilian militias

[Stonok]

Whichever side controls the Military wins. It would take a tactical genius to win a Civil War against the military in the modern day.

The Reds

Most of the military is Republican

they'd get the cream of the crop of the military

Precisely.

[Tekeristan]

They thought the 'Blues' would quit the war out of inability to stomach it with the battle of Gettysburg, that the 'toughness' of the Confederates would crumble the more 'urbanized' north.

Trying to ride to victory on the fact that your enemy doesn't have the mental capability to 'withstand' war or trauma is foolish, and will probably blow up in your face once you face resistance that is somehow unexpected.

Except in the modern era this is true. Liberals of today, won't support any kind of bloody war effort on domestic soil. Some might, but there would just be way too much internal division (protests etc).

You're talking about pre-Vietnam liberals; I'm talking about modern liberals. They're more likely to protest the government for drafting them than to fight to the death against Reds. "Fighting to the death for a greater good cause" is a thing of the past with today's Blue camp.

No sensible person wants to fight a war on their home soil, not the liberals, nor the 'die hard' conservatives. People fight because they have to, or even to defend those around them. War is terrifying.
There would be divisions in 'both' of these major groups. The liberals may have communists or socialists rise, while the conservatives have evangelicals and other radicals such as white supremacists. This is by no means a simple, 'clean' war : this would be something akin to Syria, which itself had lots of young, bright, intelligent people. You could say the conservatives have more guns, then I can simply reply that 'libs' have more educated young people to engineer car bombs. Those people aren't going to change ideals all of the sudden just because they're occupied, war is not like that anymore.
It's a war of impossibility in itself, and one in its results.

That's an assumption. Just as I won't make much for the conservatives, other than demographics, I won't make for libs. This isn't a game of stereotypes, most people are closer to average, and they're just that : people, not libs or cons in definition, but people. Just because I, myself, am more close to being a socialist than anything else and I reside in a 'red' community, doesn't mean I'm suddenly going to become a serial killer : I'd probably join in on the defense of this town if some force arrived to 'clean' it.
More likely, I'd be hiding in the valley, if I was to be real in this unreal scenario.

[Stonok]

They thought the 'Blues' would quit the war out of inability to stomach it with the battle of Gettysburg, that the 'toughness' of the Confederates would crumble the more 'urbanized' north.

I think had Stonewall Jackson survived the Confederacy might have avoided Gettysburg and perhaps found opportunity to win the war in the war in the first Civil War. Regardless of your thoughts on the Confederate States, they had great Generals, and Jackson was the epidemy of it. Lee I think was overrated. A political figure more than anything. Jackson was a tactical genius in my opinion. It took his own men to kill him. He would've been a much better Commander-in-Chief than Lee, and would've also made the CSA look better to countries like Britain I think, as he was one of the only Confederate generals who were generally liked by the local Blacks.

[Infected Mushroom]

Except in the modern era this is true. Liberals of today, won't support any kind of bloody war effort on domestic soil. Some might, but there would just be way too much internal division (protests etc).

You're talking about pre-Vietnam liberals; I'm talking about modern liberals. They're more likely to protest the government for drafting them than to fight to the death against Reds. "Fighting to the death for a greater good cause" is a thing of the past with today's Blue camp.

No sensible person wants to fight a war on their home soil, not the liberals, nor the 'die hard' conservatives. People fight because they have to, or even to defend those around them. War is terrifying.
There would be divisions in 'both' of these major groups. The liberals may have communists or socialists rise, while the conservatives have evangelicals and other radicals such as white supremacists. This is by no means a simple, 'clean' war : this would be something akin to Syria, which itself had lots of young, bright, intelligent people. You could say the conservatives have more guns, then I can simply reply that 'libs' have more educated young people to engineer car bombs. Those people aren't going to change ideals all of the sudden just because they're occupied, war is not like that anymore.
It's a war of impossibility in itself, and one in its results.

That's an assumption. Just as I won't make much for the conservatives, other than demographics, I won't make for libs. This isn't a game of stereotypes, most people are closer to average, and they're just that : people, not libs or cons in definition, but people. Just because I, myself, am more close to being a socialist than anything else and I reside in a 'red' community, doesn't mean I'm suddenly going to become a serial killer : I'd probably join in on the defense of this town if some force arrived to 'clean' it.
More likely, I'd be hiding in the valley, if I was to be real in this unreal scenario.

Blues are more likely to protest against the war effort (even if the reasons are "good" such as for civil rights reasons). Its in their political psyche to act as such.

Reds are more religious and have more cultural ties to the military; both of these traits greatly help a war effort. They are just tougher people as a whole. They've got more rural people too and these are tough, physical, people who are familiar with guns. They can recruit people who are more die-hard and try-hard in a war than the Blues can.

Not saying every Blue is anti-war but there's enough doubt in their camp to undermine any kind of long term war effort. Too much protesting.

[Infected Mushroom]

Also, the fact that most of the military (including its leadership) are Red-leaning at the start of the war is going to be a HUGE disadvantage against the Blues. Much more so than in the Civil War. Today you can't just pick up and learn how to fight a modern war and use all the equipment.

[Tekeristan]

They thought the 'Blues' would quit the war out of inability to stomach it with the battle of Gettysburg, that the 'toughness' of the Confederates would crumble the more 'urbanized' north.

I think had Stonewall Jackson survived the Confederacy might have avoided Gettysburg and perhaps found opportunity to win the war in the war in the first Civil War. Regardless of your thoughts on the Confederate States, they had great Generals, and Jackson was the epidemy of it. Lee I think was overrated. A political figure more than anything. Jackson was a tactical genius in my opinion. It took his own men to kill him. He would've been a much better Commander-in-Chief than Lee, and would've also made the CSA look better to countries like Britain I think, as he was one of the only Confederate generals who were generally liked by the local Blacks.

It was very unlikely the Confederate's could of won the war, even without situations such as Gettysburg.

The only way they could of won was if they somehow 'broke' the will of the North to fight, which was the intended purpose of Gettysburg to begin with.
The north had more people, more money, more industry, a navy to blockade the south, and an increasingly better army.
Instead of accepting an inevitable defeat, the plantation heads of the south fought to sustain their control over the south, resulting in the death of tens of thousands of young American men. More should of hung, tbh.

[Diopolis]

The Blues have a stronger economy with more cities. However, the Reds have the allegiance of most of the military (most military personnel would be Reds politically); they've also got a more militant population (more religious, more familiar with firearms, tougher people in general). I imagine the Reds would be more motivated to fight and be more willing to stomach horrors (the power of the Bible belt and a more militant culture) whereas there would be more protests, divisions, and debates over rights and privileges in the Blue camp. That could prove decisive, a few bloodbaths get on Twitter etc and the Blues might come to the negotiating table.

Ultimately though, I think the Reds have the advantage. The Blues can't really hit any 1 major city early and call in a win and so a longer war is guaranteed. The Blues don't have the political strength to keep the war going for long despite having a bigger economy. The fact that most of the nation's best soldiers and commanders will join the Red camp will probably prove decisive. I expect the Reds can take a few major cities and force a win pretty fast. And if not, in a war of attrition Blue morale will run out fast. Liberals don't like long bloody wars; the Liberals in WWII and the American Revolution were one thing, the Liberals of today won't put up with "greater good" arguments. The Red camp though? Plenty of ideological room for that sort of stuff (power of the Bible Belt etc).

Red Victory 8/10

The reds are likely to have a better army, at least initially. They're probably going to have more staying power, because rural areas are simply less vulnerable to warfare than urban areas.They're likely to have an easier time resupplying. The reds are probably going to win on these issues alone.
Now throw in foreign support- which candidates have been backed by Russia again?

[Diopolis]

Except in the modern era this is true. Liberals of today, won't support any kind of bloody war effort on domestic soil. Some might, but there would just be way too much internal division (protests etc).

You're talking about pre-Vietnam liberals; I'm talking about modern liberals. They're more likely to protest the government for drafting them than to fight to the death against Reds. "Fighting to the death for a greater good cause" is a thing of the past with today's Blue camp.

No sensible person wants to fight a war on their home soil, not the liberals, nor the 'die hard' conservatives. People fight because they have to, or even to defend those around them. War is terrifying.
There would be divisions in 'both' of these major groups. The liberals may have communists or socialists rise, while the conservatives have evangelicals and other radicals such as white supremacists. This is by no means a simple, 'clean' war : this would be something akin to Syria, which itself had lots of young, bright, intelligent people. You could say the conservatives have more guns, then I can simply reply that 'libs' have more educated young people to engineer car bombs. Those people aren't going to change ideals all of the sudden just because they're occupied, war is not like that anymore.
It's a war of impossibility in itself, and one in its results.

That's an assumption. Just as I won't make much for the conservatives, other than demographics, I won't make for libs. This isn't a game of stereotypes, most people are closer to average, and they're just that : people, not libs or cons in definition, but people. Just because I, myself, am more close to being a socialist than anything else and I reside in a 'red' community, doesn't mean I'm suddenly going to become a serial killer : I'd probably join in on the defense of this town if some force arrived to 'clean' it.
More likely, I'd be hiding in the valley, if I was to be real in this unreal scenario.

I have noticed that left wingers right now tend to fight among themselves to a greater degree than right wingers, but that's just a right now thing and counld probably change at the drop of a hat.

[Infected Mushroom]

No sensible person wants to fight a war on their home soil, not the liberals, nor the 'die hard' conservatives. People fight because they have to, or even to defend those around them. War is terrifying.
There would be divisions in 'both' of these major groups. The liberals may have communists or socialists rise, while the conservatives have evangelicals and other radicals such as white supremacists. This is by no means a simple, 'clean' war : this would be something akin to Syria, which itself had lots of young, bright, intelligent people. You could say the conservatives have more guns, then I can simply reply that 'libs' have more educated young people to engineer car bombs. Those people aren't going to change ideals all of the sudden just because they're occupied, war is not like that anymore.
It's a war of impossibility in itself, and one in its results.

That's an assumption. Just as I won't make much for the conservatives, other than demographics, I won't make for libs. This isn't a game of stereotypes, most people are closer to average, and they're just that : people, not libs or cons in definition, but people. Just because I, myself, am more close to being a socialist than anything else and I reside in a 'red' community, doesn't mean I'm suddenly going to become a serial killer : I'd probably join in on the defense of this town if some force arrived to 'clean' it.
More likely, I'd be hiding in the valley, if I was to be real in this unreal scenario.

I have noticed that left wingers right now tend to fight among themselves to a greater degree than right wingers, but that's just a right now thing and counld probably change at the drop of a hat.

I've noticed this tendency too.

But let's just ask this... Say the government wanted to issue a national draft. Now can you imagine the Blue camp just going along with this? All of a sudden I have a feeling most of the Blues (for example on this forum) would rather their side lost the war than get along with this draft. Nothing wrong with that but it doesn't help the war.

Maybe some in the Red camp would protest but I definitely see more protests in the Blue camp.

[Diopolis]

I have noticed that left wingers right now tend to fight among themselves to a greater degree than right wingers, but that's just a right now thing and counld probably change at the drop of a hat.

I've noticed this tendency too.

But let's just ask this... Say the government wanted to issue a national draft. Now can you imagine the Blue camp just going along with this?

Maybe some in the Red camp would protest but I definitely see more protests in the Blue camp.

Pretty much no one would like that.

[Infected Mushroom]

I've noticed this tendency too.

But let's just ask this... Say the government wanted to issue a national draft. Now can you imagine the Blue camp just going along with this?

Maybe some in the Red camp would protest but I definitely see more protests in the Blue camp.

Pretty much no one would like that.

I have a feeling the Reds would stomach it. But the Blues won't.

[Tekeristan]

No sensible person wants to fight a war on their home soil, not the liberals, nor the 'die hard' conservatives. People fight because they have to, or even to defend those around them. War is terrifying.
There would be divisions in 'both' of these major groups. The liberals may have communists or socialists rise, while the conservatives have evangelicals and other radicals such as white supremacists. This is by no means a simple, 'clean' war : this would be something akin to Syria, which itself had lots of young, bright, intelligent people. You could say the conservatives have more guns, then I can simply reply that 'libs' have more educated young people to engineer car bombs. Those people aren't going to change ideals all of the sudden just because they're occupied, war is not like that anymore.
It's a war of impossibility in itself, and one in its results.

That's an assumption. Just as I won't make much for the conservatives, other than demographics, I won't make for libs. This isn't a game of stereotypes, most people are closer to average, and they're just that : people, not libs or cons in definition, but people. Just because I, myself, am more close to being a socialist than anything else and I reside in a 'red' community, doesn't mean I'm suddenly going to become a serial killer : I'd probably join in on the defense of this town if some force arrived to 'clean' it.
More likely, I'd be hiding in the valley, if I was to be real in this unreal scenario.

Blues are more likely to protest against the war effort (even if the reasons are "good" such as for civil rights reasons). Its in their political psyche to act as such.

Reds are more religious and have more cultural ties to the military; both of these traits greatly help a war effort. They are just tougher people as a whole. They've got more rural people too and these are tough, physical, people who are familiar with guns. They can recruit people who are more die-hard and try-hard in a war than the Blues can.

Not saying every Blue is anti-war but there's enough doubt in their camp to undermine any kind of long term war effort. Too much protesting.

When it comes down to survival, there is a lot less arguing : especially when shells are falling in your neighborhood.
Nonetheless, don't make any assumptions that there wouldn't be a very fair share of protesting on the side of the 'Reds'. The vast majority of people aren't going to be actively fighting, and they don't want to. People aren't naturally prepared to kill each other.

I honestly don't think that matters. Religion? Sure. But that doesn't make a person a better fighter, or even have better morale. There's the quote there's no such thing as an athiest in a fox hole, but we all believe in something : otherwise, we don't fight. This is not a war scenario of patriotism or even in faith with God, although I have no doubt that 'extremist' groups would form around that, this is a war of neighbors and neighborhoods.
Nonetheless : educated city people make better soldiers than tough farmers. Discipline and education are important factors. What personal reasoning do these farmers have, and I know as I am one and live in a farming community, to actively leave their homes, farms, crops and life stalk to suddenly go hundreds of miles away to engage against a defender who is defending their home?

Again, no one's protesting when there's machine gun fire the street over. Nonetheless, it's still assuming that there wouldn't be mass protesting on the side of the 'reds' as well. Just as the blues don't want to leave their homes, Reds don't wanna leave theirs. That's because we're both people.

Also, the fact that most of the military (including its leadership) are Red-leaning at the start of the war is going to be a HUGE disadvantage against the Blues. Much more so than in the Civil War. Today you can't just pick up and learn how to fight a modern war and use all the equipment.

The military is a disciplined force. If it doesn't shatter immediately upon having the whole of the United States fracturing into its untold number of groups, or the military itself split into separate civil war that destroys its capabilities, it would be actively trying to suppress insurrection.
What we would likely see more of, instead, is States trying to assemble their National Guards, which is a problem because it has to draw from a suddenly shattered population. Only unified states, such as mine (Minnesota), or California, may they likely achieve something akin to that. But again, how do you convince this group to leave their homeland vulnerable to go burn down their neighbors?