What if Civil War broke out between Republicans and Democrats?
video description
As noted, there are more democrats than republicans but concentrated in the coastal areas. However these same areas are the epicenters of wealth, finance, banking, and infrastructure. Americas infrastructure is in many ways spoke and wheel, meaning without cities, its in many ways rural areas cut off from one another.
Similarly: capture northern NJ or Havre de Grace in MD. again. the Cities are coastal. so they would just use water (and air) anyways. meaning capturing those areas is largely irrelevant.
Similarly, as democratic population centers are the economic engines of the country. that is already where trade goods, money and resources are imported. America is a net importer of goods, not net exporter, so America's consumable resources come largely in through the cities. Not the rural areas.
As such, trade and economic relations are established without the rest of the world in the cities, making it easier to bring in and distribute aid and resources.
Rural America is vast and sparsely populated. Republicans are fewer (thought not much) but on the whole significantly older and less mobile, with such vast, sparsely populated areas to defend, it would be near impossible to maintain any areas securely.
America's engineers, doctors, researchers etc. are largely liberal/ in urban areas. That's a lot of brain power. (though granted many republicans are in trade (meaning plumbers, mechanics, laborers, etc)
Democrats would have the intellectuals, the finances, the trade networks, outside (essential) connections to trade and aid, and the bulk of the important infrastructure. Republicans would have domestic agriculture, trades people but generally an older population and vast swathes of sparsely developed land with poorer infrastructure.
More importantly though. how said to see our country in a state where people are not only discussing this hypothetically but doing so with such a visceral hatred of the other where even just 20 years ago- we had our differences but certainly didn't think less of one-another for them.
I don't think if people realize that with how massive our population and economy are, and how interspersed our populations are. such a conflict would be the end of the country. There would be no victor, only a country and population so cataclysmically devastated that the only path forward would be to see the map fractured into multiple new, disparate political entities. After something like that, there would no longer be an America. At best, only multiple different factions to claiming to be the true inheritors of that country but with too much indemnity between themselves to ever re-unite.
We better hope we can start finding our common ground again. We may want some very different things for this country but I fundamentally think that we all at least think we want that because we love the country so much and want it to be the best version of itself. I hope that's something we can build on again. I grew up in a country with boundless optimism, forward thinking, and boundless ideas. that to live in this country now is like being on a totally different planet.
Countries that hate the US love seeing/ hearing us talk like we do in this video and on this thread. LOVE it.
Date: 2022-07-15
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
Daniel
You can't besiege modern cities. They don't have walls. There is no reason the attackers cannot simply march straight in.
And it makes no sense to think that just because Republicans are in a majority in rural areas that covers 95% of a state, they would necessarily defeat Democrats in cities in the other 5%, especially if the Democrats outnumber Republicans 60: 40 in the state.
It isn't land that fight. It is the people. The Republicans starts thinly spread out with a large area to defend. The Democrats are already concentrated in urban areas. Think of it this way, they are already mustered together, while the Republicans still have to gather up their forces.
In the beginning, the Democrats would immediately spread out from the cities and capture the adjacent rural areas. They can do this because in the local battles, they outnumber the rural towns. Just think of the small towns in the rural areas. Population 1000. There are more people in a single large apartment block in the city.
In Illinois, 88. 5% of the population lives in the urban areas.
But either scenario are not realistic. Republicans and Democrats are mixed together in every city, town, and apartment block. Just because a town is 60% Republican, doesn't mean we should therefore consider it Republican and assume everybody would fight for the Republicans. Applying first-past-the-post in this way is silly. What is more likely to happen is that every town and apartment block would have their own civil war first. Fighting for every street, every floor. And when they're done, the winners would be too beat up to go attack another town. They would be too exhausted, with too many death, their original towns too devastated
reply
You can't besiege modern cities. They don't have walls. There is no reason the attackers cannot simply march straight in.
And it makes no sense to think that just because Republicans are in a majority in rural areas that covers 95% of a state, they would necessarily defeat Democrats in cities in the other 5%, especially if the Democrats outnumber Republicans 60: 40 in the state.
It isn't land that fight. It is the people. The Republicans starts thinly spread out with a large area to defend. The Democrats are already concentrated in urban areas. Think of it this way, they are already mustered together, while the Republicans still have to gather up their forces.
In the beginning, the Democrats would immediately spread out from the cities and capture the adjacent rural areas. They can do this because in the local battles, they outnumber the rural towns. Just think of the small towns in the rural areas. Population 1000. There are more people in a single large apartment block in the city.
In Illinois, 88. 5% of the population lives in the urban areas.
But either scenario are not realistic. Republicans and Democrats are mixed together in every city, town, and apartment block. Just because a town is 60% Republican, doesn't mean we should therefore consider it Republican and assume everybody would fight for the Republicans. Applying first-past-the-post in this way is silly. What is more likely to happen is that every town and apartment block would have their own civil war first. Fighting for every street, every floor. And when they're done, the winners would be too beat up to go attack another town. They would be too exhausted, with too many death, their original towns too devastated
reply
NeonBunnies
It should be remembered that it's not just voting blocs who are fighting, it's the governors too. It's the governors who use their state's resources, rally their people, and deploy their National Guards. In addition, enclaves exist within all blocs. States are purple, not blue and red. Republicans live in cities and Democrats live in rural areas.
Also, the United States army and navy are at the command of the President, meaning having a Democratic President may lead to some major changes in your timeline. While defection would remain high in some areas, the main cabinet wouldn't. I mean, they're obligated to perform a nuclear strike even when everybody disagrees with it, so defection wouldn't be high.
Also, even with a Republican President, Democrats may attempt to win the political war. While Canada and Mexico may not directly intervene, them and other countries such as those Europe may chose to economically cripple the Right via embargoes or sanctions if it becomes politically safe to do so. It wouldn't change the direction of the war unless it's neck-and-neck, but will change post-war America.
Assuming all sides are equal, the Republicans win (if you ignore the rampant domestic instability that's going to come after the war, but with some changed circumstances, a few won battles, the Democrats might just pull out a victory.
reply
It should be remembered that it's not just voting blocs who are fighting, it's the governors too. It's the governors who use their state's resources, rally their people, and deploy their National Guards. In addition, enclaves exist within all blocs. States are purple, not blue and red. Republicans live in cities and Democrats live in rural areas.
Also, the United States army and navy are at the command of the President, meaning having a Democratic President may lead to some major changes in your timeline. While defection would remain high in some areas, the main cabinet wouldn't. I mean, they're obligated to perform a nuclear strike even when everybody disagrees with it, so defection wouldn't be high.
Also, even with a Republican President, Democrats may attempt to win the political war. While Canada and Mexico may not directly intervene, them and other countries such as those Europe may chose to economically cripple the Right via embargoes or sanctions if it becomes politically safe to do so. It wouldn't change the direction of the war unless it's neck-and-neck, but will change post-war America.
Assuming all sides are equal, the Republicans win (if you ignore the rampant domestic instability that's going to come after the war, but with some changed circumstances, a few won battles, the Democrats might just pull out a victory.
reply
education
The outcome may be very different now, especially with military shifting its allegiance.
But I dont think a war how you described is really possible, I could only see a somewhat coordinated war being waged this way:
I think a conflict would be slow to materialize, with political violence escalating until state or more likely county level officials begin completely ignoring federal rules or law, this could be either party. You may see a blue fed attempt to stop red states from ignoring firearms laws, refusing to take in migrants, or similar (I find this unlikely, or a red fed cracking down on blue states ignoring the 2a, possible conflict over a roe/wade overturn, ignoring riots, etc (I find this much more likely.
More likely you just see a years of lead type situation until one faction can win an election and cement their control by force (both physical and judicial. That is not a comment on the previous election, I just think that is a more likely resolution with a population so risk averse, though it may be the worst possible outcome.
reply
The outcome may be very different now, especially with military shifting its allegiance.
But I dont think a war how you described is really possible, I could only see a somewhat coordinated war being waged this way:
I think a conflict would be slow to materialize, with political violence escalating until state or more likely county level officials begin completely ignoring federal rules or law, this could be either party. You may see a blue fed attempt to stop red states from ignoring firearms laws, refusing to take in migrants, or similar (I find this unlikely, or a red fed cracking down on blue states ignoring the 2a, possible conflict over a roe/wade overturn, ignoring riots, etc (I find this much more likely.
More likely you just see a years of lead type situation until one faction can win an election and cement their control by force (both physical and judicial. That is not a comment on the previous election, I just think that is a more likely resolution with a population so risk averse, though it may be the worst possible outcome.
reply
Kenneth
Examintion of the militaries loyalty is the only thing that really matters. In that anlysis each branch needs to be looked at independently, the airforces are so powerfull that they might single handedly descide a war. Likewise the officer corp in the US is by doctrine non-partisan, so low numbers for one party arn't meanigfull with out the number fo the other party, if both are low it just means the officers keep their partisanship close to the chest. The higher one goes in the military the higher the education levels and this has incressingly become a predictor of Democratic party identification.
Lastly no assesment of which side the officer corp would side with can be done in a vacume, the actual insiting event and the constitutionality of it are key with the officer corp and then the enlisted firmly lining up on the side which has the percived constitional legitimacy. The real question is which Party is going to be the one to have the constitutional highground, and why is the other party starting an unwinnable war when they lack it.
reply
Examintion of the militaries loyalty is the only thing that really matters. In that anlysis each branch needs to be looked at independently, the airforces are so powerfull that they might single handedly descide a war. Likewise the officer corp in the US is by doctrine non-partisan, so low numbers for one party arn't meanigfull with out the number fo the other party, if both are low it just means the officers keep their partisanship close to the chest. The higher one goes in the military the higher the education levels and this has incressingly become a predictor of Democratic party identification.
Lastly no assesment of which side the officer corp would side with can be done in a vacume, the actual insiting event and the constitutionality of it are key with the officer corp and then the enlisted firmly lining up on the side which has the percived constitional legitimacy. The real question is which Party is going to be the one to have the constitutional highground, and why is the other party starting an unwinnable war when they lack it.
reply
gwho
militaries, if not run by a single man at the top, don't just pick sides according to politics
there's a current command structure, and most of the country is still thinking on a federal level, with USA identity being far more powerful than state identity.
so if the federal gov just gives the order to keep the country together and quell violence, be it republican or democrat, it'll happen that way.
even if top generals picked sides and even if soldiers obeyed the chain of command, it's not like generals are like caesar anymore, where they command the respect and loyalty of their troops, where the troops will follow their general. most don't even know their general's name.
On top of this, do you think the FBI and CIA will just sit by, or pick sides themselves? no. they're federal agencies, and at the very least, can coerce/put pressure on / carrot & stick top military leaders to their ordered federal will.
reply
militaries, if not run by a single man at the top, don't just pick sides according to politics
there's a current command structure, and most of the country is still thinking on a federal level, with USA identity being far more powerful than state identity.
so if the federal gov just gives the order to keep the country together and quell violence, be it republican or democrat, it'll happen that way.
even if top generals picked sides and even if soldiers obeyed the chain of command, it's not like generals are like caesar anymore, where they command the respect and loyalty of their troops, where the troops will follow their general. most don't even know their general's name.
On top of this, do you think the FBI and CIA will just sit by, or pick sides themselves? no. they're federal agencies, and at the very least, can coerce/put pressure on / carrot & stick top military leaders to their ordered federal will.
reply
psoltan
I find the whole modern civil war scenario ridiculous. Despite the NRA rhetoric and availability of AR-15 weapons, there is an enormous difference between a modern army and what a US citizen can purchase. When the average citizen can buy armored vests, armored vehicles, armed drones, missiles, etc then I might be worried. The US government is never going to allow any significant build-up of arms that isn't officially sanctioned by the government. A rogue police force or National Guard unit is going to get put down quickly.
IMHO, the majority of the political division is based on religious values like right-to-life vs abortion. It would be incredibly ironic to have the Republican Religious Right go all Taliban on the Democrats and kill people to overturn Roe-Wade and bring back Christian hegemony to the US.
reply
I find the whole modern civil war scenario ridiculous. Despite the NRA rhetoric and availability of AR-15 weapons, there is an enormous difference between a modern army and what a US citizen can purchase. When the average citizen can buy armored vests, armored vehicles, armed drones, missiles, etc then I might be worried. The US government is never going to allow any significant build-up of arms that isn't officially sanctioned by the government. A rogue police force or National Guard unit is going to get put down quickly.
IMHO, the majority of the political division is based on religious values like right-to-life vs abortion. It would be incredibly ironic to have the Republican Religious Right go all Taliban on the Democrats and kill people to overturn Roe-Wade and bring back Christian hegemony to the US.
reply
Bill
I live in CT and it is not as Democrat as you think, I'm Libertarian and there are a lot of republicans here and red towns, Then I lived in Texas and it isn't as republican as you would think. People there would find out I'm from Ct and whisper to me that they were Democrats, I didn't bother telling them, I just laughed because they were whispering in there own homes, but just like most families in the US they are mixed everywhere. Do you really believe those maps created by those who run the narrative. If you do they got you right where they want you.
That would be a libertarian slightly on the left, take care of the planet by teaching our children, help those that need it in small communities so it's less likely they are screwing the system, so no welfare state, and decentralize our monetary system.
reply
I live in CT and it is not as Democrat as you think, I'm Libertarian and there are a lot of republicans here and red towns, Then I lived in Texas and it isn't as republican as you would think. People there would find out I'm from Ct and whisper to me that they were Democrats, I didn't bother telling them, I just laughed because they were whispering in there own homes, but just like most families in the US they are mixed everywhere. Do you really believe those maps created by those who run the narrative. If you do they got you right where they want you.
That would be a libertarian slightly on the left, take care of the planet by teaching our children, help those that need it in small communities so it's less likely they are screwing the system, so no welfare state, and decentralize our monetary system.
reply
Franklin
California would have no fuel, power, water, transportation and food. The Northwest would have what for manpower, the manbuns from the colleges or cities. I think people forget what it takes to fight and win, I believe the first taste of fighting on the west coast would end very fast especially if there wasnt revenge killings. Most of the national guard would go Republican in the east and I dont believe they would hold out for too long, the cities would be dark, hot (if in summer) and freezing (if in winter) as like in California no food, water etc, I think it would be 2 weeks of prep for the national guard, army units and then it would be just the cities left and they are just big camps to siege and starve out.
reply
California would have no fuel, power, water, transportation and food. The Northwest would have what for manpower, the manbuns from the colleges or cities. I think people forget what it takes to fight and win, I believe the first taste of fighting on the west coast would end very fast especially if there wasnt revenge killings. Most of the national guard would go Republican in the east and I dont believe they would hold out for too long, the cities would be dark, hot (if in summer) and freezing (if in winter) as like in California no food, water etc, I think it would be 2 weeks of prep for the national guard, army units and then it would be just the cities left and they are just big camps to siege and starve out.
reply
Jacob
Another point that's not being made is the opinion of each side has on each other. Republicans overwhelmingly have a realistic view on the Democrats on what they support and why. At the same time the Democrats generally do not understand the Republicans and have trouble figuring out their motives, as a result they oftenly just chalk it up to them being evil and spend little other effort on it. This would likely be also true in a civil war with the Republicans being realistic on the strength of the Democrats, while the Democrats would generally view Republican troops as just a bunch of dumb Hicks with rifles and would continuously March themselves into slaughter against well-trained militia and military units.
reply
Another point that's not being made is the opinion of each side has on each other. Republicans overwhelmingly have a realistic view on the Democrats on what they support and why. At the same time the Democrats generally do not understand the Republicans and have trouble figuring out their motives, as a result they oftenly just chalk it up to them being evil and spend little other effort on it. This would likely be also true in a civil war with the Republicans being realistic on the strength of the Democrats, while the Democrats would generally view Republican troops as just a bunch of dumb Hicks with rifles and would continuously March themselves into slaughter against well-trained militia and military units.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
