6 ms·

A civil war in the US would be brutal. On the US and on global economy. The devastation of modern western society would be absolute. I can't even begin to imag

by Swizec 10y ago

A civil war in the US would be brutal. On the US and on global economy. The devastation of modern western society would be absolute. I can't even begin to imagine what the outcome would be. Mind you, the US government has the largest military force in the world by far. Bigger than the next 3 or 4 biggest militaries combined. Does anyone really want to fight that? The answer is probably No.

nfoz 10y ago
Or we can just allow secession without a civil war.
- matheweis 10y ago
  The last Civil War, contrary to popular belief, was fought over this premise, and the outcome effectively gauranteed it will never happen.
  - afarrell 10y ago
    But what was the cause of secession? Well, if you believe the various southern legislatures, the cause was the defense of the institution of slavery: http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/dec...
- Swizec 10y ago
  Let's say California wants to secede. Do you really think the government will part calmly with its largest economy?
  - LeifCarrotson 10y ago
    Let's say Britain wants to leave the EU. Do you really think Europe will part calmly with its second-largest economy?
    - chillacy 10y ago
      Very different. The EU has a legal method of succession (article 50), the US was brought together under a strict constitution, creating a single federal government. Compared to the original Articles of Confederation: > In dramatic contrast to Article VII–whose unanimity rule that no state can bind another confirms the sovereignty of each state prior to 1787 –Article V does not permit a single state convention to modify the federal Constitution for itself. Moreover, it makes clear that a state may be bound by a federal constitutional amendment even if that state votes against the amendment in a properly convened state convention. And this rule is flatly inconsistent with the idea that states remain sovereign after joining the Constitution, even if they were sovereign before joining it. Thus, ratification of the Constitution itself marked the moment when previously sovereign states gave up their sovereignty and legal independence
      - nfoz 10y ago
        A better comparison would be the formation of Canada, or better yet: the Quebec referendum to separate from Canada (put to a vote of the people, but narrowly lost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1995 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1995)
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
pdx 10y ago
> Does anyone really want to fight that? The answer is probably No. You won't be fighting the US military. Many of them will join with you. They are people, not killing machines. They are your neighbors and the sons and daughters of your neighbors. They will not fire on their countrymen because a politician told them to. The men and women in our military swore to uphold the constitution. They did not swear to be the thugs for a group of elites who got elected only through virtue of millions upon millions of dollars of campaign contributions from organizations that do not have the best interest of this nation as their goal.
- afarrell 10y ago
  Okay, so you're fighting half of the US Military. A civil war in the US isn't going to be against some mustache-twirling cartoon villain that everyone recognizes is the greater evil. It will be a complex conflict where the participants don't even agree on the facts behind things. Add to that the various identity groups who all vary widely in how much they trust the government... Rather than Tiananmen square, we would get Syria.
- Swizec 10y ago
  Hahahahahahahahaha. Sorry but your naivete is amusing. Sure, I may have been 5 years old when I went through a [very short] civil war, but I still remember the news. Many soldiers didn't even know why they were being asked to shoot this or that. While in the barracks they were kept under strict radio silence from outside and most had no idea a civil war had started. They were just told to go there and shoot over there. They didn't know if they were shooting at their neighbors from back home, at somebody they hate, or what.[1] Eventually news spread and the war got very very bloody as people who used to be comrades became personally involved in drinking the kool-aid. Luckily the bloody parts were removed from where I lived, but a lot of my classmates in elementary school were refugees. Civil war ain't nothing to sneeze at. It is the worst type of war. [1] There's a video from a private telling all of this to a news crew. Seeing it on TV is one of my earliest memories. It's in serbocroatian and I don't know if there's a version with English subtitles. -> https://www.facebook.com/zetraprojekt/videos/865414093588116/ https://www.facebook.com/zetraprojekt/videos/865414093588116... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_Yugoslavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_Yugoslavia
CapitalistCartr 10y ago
In the last one, with about 1/10 our present population, about 3/4 million people died. The military split between sides, which, were it to happen now, would be the end of the country.

by Swizec 10y ago

nfoz 10y ago

Or we can just allow secession without a civil war.

matheweis 10y ago
The last Civil War, contrary to popular belief, was fought over this premise, and the outcome effectively gauranteed it will never happen.
- afarrell 10y ago
  But what was the cause of secession? Well, if you believe the various southern legislatures, the cause was the defense of the institution of slavery: http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/dec...
Swizec 10y ago
Let's say California wants to secede. Do you really think the government will part calmly with its largest economy?
- LeifCarrotson 10y ago
  Let's say Britain wants to leave the EU. Do you really think Europe will part calmly with its second-largest economy?
  - chillacy 10y ago
    Very different. The EU has a legal method of succession (article 50), the US was brought together under a strict constitution, creating a single federal government. Compared to the original Articles of Confederation: > In dramatic contrast to Article VII–whose unanimity rule that no state can bind another confirms the sovereignty of each state prior to 1787 –Article V does not permit a single state convention to modify the federal Constitution for itself. Moreover, it makes clear that a state may be bound by a federal constitutional amendment even if that state votes against the amendment in a properly convened state convention. And this rule is flatly inconsistent with the idea that states remain sovereign after joining the Constitution, even if they were sovereign before joining it. Thus, ratification of the Constitution itself marked the moment when previously sovereign states gave up their sovereignty and legal independence
    - nfoz 10y ago
      A better comparison would be the formation of Canada, or better yet: the Quebec referendum to separate from Canada (put to a vote of the people, but narrowly lost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1995 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1995)
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

pdx 10y ago

> Does anyone really want to fight that? The answer is probably No. You won't be fighting the US military. Many of them will join with you. They are people, not killing machines. They are your neighbors and the sons and daughters of your neighbors. They will not fire on their countrymen because a politician told them to. The men and women in our military swore to uphold the constitution. They did not swear to be the thugs for a group of elites who got elected only through virtue of millions upon millions of dollars of campaign contributions from organizations that do not have the best interest of this nation as their goal.

afarrell 10y ago
Okay, so you're fighting half of the US Military. A civil war in the US isn't going to be against some mustache-twirling cartoon villain that everyone recognizes is the greater evil. It will be a complex conflict where the participants don't even agree on the facts behind things. Add to that the various identity groups who all vary widely in how much they trust the government... Rather than Tiananmen square, we would get Syria.
Swizec 10y ago
Hahahahahahahahaha. Sorry but your naivete is amusing. Sure, I may have been 5 years old when I went through a [very short] civil war, but I still remember the news. Many soldiers didn't even know why they were being asked to shoot this or that. While in the barracks they were kept under strict radio silence from outside and most had no idea a civil war had started. They were just told to go there and shoot over there. They didn't know if they were shooting at their neighbors from back home, at somebody they hate, or what.[1] Eventually news spread and the war got very very bloody as people who used to be comrades became personally involved in drinking the kool-aid. Luckily the bloody parts were removed from where I lived, but a lot of my classmates in elementary school were refugees. Civil war ain't nothing to sneeze at. It is the worst type of war. [1] There's a video from a private telling all of this to a news crew. Seeing it on TV is one of my earliest memories. It's in serbocroatian and I don't know if there's a version with English subtitles. -> https://www.facebook.com/zetraprojekt/videos/865414093588116/ https://www.facebook.com/zetraprojekt/videos/865414093588116... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_Yugoslavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_Yugoslavia

CapitalistCartr 10y ago

In the last one, with about 1/10 our present population, about 3/4 million people died. The military split between sides, which, were it to happen now, would be the end of the country.