NationStates

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.

Same as OP...Conservative peoples would win in a civil war, though it would most likely be bloody at first, due to most major cities having a liberal majority, it would basically be massive battles over these cities in the start, tis conservative armies can mobilize and crush the liberals.

It would end moments minutes later as everyone involved with a lick of sense realised that there's nothing to be accomplished by such a war, and the handful lacking even a lick of sense who were still eager for a bit of warring would get arrested quickly enough.

What do you mean 'what if'.

This has already happened. In the 19th century.

Ifreann wrote:It would end moments minutes later as everyone involved with a lick of sense realised that there's nothing to be accomplished by such a war, and the handful lacking even a lick of sense who were still eager for a bit of warring would get arrested quickly enough.

It would not.

A civil war usually starts when one part of the society sees the other as subhuman villains, and vice versa. It takes lots of negotiations to stop that.

The Blaatschapen wrote:What do you mean 'what if'.

This has already happened. In the 19th century.

Try to put the word "today" in the title. I dare you.

Or "future", for that matter.

In this kinda silly scenario the conservatives and right wingers probably win.

Petrolheadia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:It would end moments minutes later as everyone involved with a lick of sense realised that there's nothing to be accomplished by such a war, and the handful lacking even a lick of sense who were still eager for a bit of warring would get arrested quickly enough.

It would not.

A civil war usually starts when one part of the society sees the other as subhuman villains, and vice versa. It takes lots of negotiations to stop that.

It doesn't take any negotiations to stop it when that isn't the case to begin with.

The Blaatschapen wrote:What do you mean 'what if'.

This has already happened. In the 19th century.

That is a severe misinterpretation of the civil war.

Conservatives would win. Libbies don't have guns.

Osnil Returns wrote:Conservatives would win. Libbies don't have guns.

There are still liberals who own guns.
My parents for example.

Valgora wrote:

Osnil Returns wrote:Conservatives would win. Libbies don't have guns.

There are still liberals who own guns.
My parents for example.

They're very much in the minority, conservatives and moderates own the majority of the nations weapons.

It would be over in a day. Even without guns, a movement represented by fat chicks, scrawny nu-males and objects of public charity, all of whom only know how to get their way by claiming victimhood (or claiming to speak for victims), have neither the physical nor mental ability to put up any kind of resistance.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Valgora wrote:
There are still liberals who own guns.
My parents for example.

They're very much in the minority, conservatives and moderates own the majority of the nations weapons.

Moderates who are probably sensible enough not to use those weapons to bring about the destruction of the United States.

Ambarii wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
They're very much in the minority, conservatives and moderates own the majority of the nations weapons.

Moderates who are probably sensible enough not to use those weapons to bring about the destruction of the United States.

Nothing about the scenario is sensible.

Ambarii wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
They're very much in the minority, conservatives and moderates own the majority of the nations weapons.

Moderates who are probably sensible enough not to use those weapons to bring about the destruction of the United States.

I don't think the moderates would even get involved.

Valgora wrote:

Ambarii wrote:Moderates who are probably sensible enough not to use those weapons to bring about the destruction of the United States.

I don't think the moderates would even get involved.

The Kekistanies would.....because we hate liberals more than conservatives

Petrolheadia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:It would end moments minutes later as everyone involved with a lick of sense realised that there's nothing to be accomplished by such a war, and the handful lacking even a lick of sense who were still eager for a bit of warring would get arrested quickly enough.

It would not.

A civil war usually starts when one part of the society sees the other as subhuman villains, and vice versa. It takes lots of negotiations to stop that.

Iffy's point is that this stage hasn't been reached and, Trumpish rhetoric aside, still hasn't and likely won't.

Petrolheadia wrote: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.

i'm having a hard time finding the results of the liberal vs conservative numbers.


Anyway, it would be a race to "Who can get to the nuclear weapons first".

For example, the ones in Colorado and (maybe) Vandenberg Air Force Base. Both liberal states.

They get them first, they nuke most of the US before the conservatives get to them.

Or, the conservatives get to them in states like Montana and nuke them first.

There could also be a moderate faction that could be the other 39% of the population and could beat both of them.

To be able to answer this question at all, you'd have to specify how this civil war would happen. The civilians and their guns are irrelevant, the military matters. But to know which parts of the military will do what, we have to know at what level this break-up happens. What's the role of the federal governments? What about state governments? That sort of thing.

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

It would mark the beginning of NS Summer 2017.

Datlofff wrote:

Valgora wrote:
I don't think the moderates would even get involved.

The Kekistanies would.....because we hate liberals more than conservatives

The 'Kekistan' meme, being a /pol/ thing, wouldn't be a moderate meme.

Neu Leonstein wrote:To be able to answer this question at all, you'd have to specify how this civil war would happen. The civilians and their guns are irrelevant, the military matters. But to know which parts of the military will do what, we have to know at what level this break-up happens. What's the role of the federal governments? What about state governments? That sort of thing.

Well, the military as a whole leans conservative.

It's also a bit silly to claim that the civilians with their, based on recent numbers, possibly 660,000,000 firearms are irrelevant.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Ambarii wrote:Moderates who are probably sensible enough not to use those weapons to bring about the destruction of the United States.

Nothing about the scenario is sensible.

A war without a cause, without goals, somehow breaking out between two groups that aren't organised in any way, aren't all that united, and don't have any real leadership. We may as well be discussing who would win in a war between people with different eye colours.

Dagnia wrote:It would be over in a day. Even without guns, a movement represented by fat chicks, scrawny nu-males and objects of public charity, all of whom only know how to get their way by claiming victimhood (or claiming to speak for victims), have neither the physical nor mental ability to put up any kind of resistance.

The entirety of the left is represented by it's most annoying parts.

Why?