> Also x2, why do people I speak to about this always get the impression that everyone in the military will unanimously agree that drone striking and nuking its

> Also x2, why do people I speak to about this always get the impression that everyone in the military will unanimously agree that drone striking and nuking its land, resources, and people is a beneficial strategy? Not to mention the immorality of it. There will be splintering. It will be civil war. There's a great chance there will be two US armies, two presidents, etc. when the time comes. Because we are thinking about randoms with guns and other weaponry, not organized rebellion/treason a la the Confederacy. edit: wouldn't, in the case of such a massive organized rebellion, engaging in even more brutal and aggressive tactics actually make more sense? The stakes are much higher in that scenario, and wouldn't the United States want to decimate the enemy's supply, etc., as it partly did during the original Civil War?