People keep saying this and I personally don’t really believe it, I think there could be a couple riots, but not like a full on civil war. What does everyone think?

  • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    No. Like you say, riots, and of course the ongoing epidemic of stochastic terrorism, possibly with more violence directed against politicians and the government, but it’s definitely not going to look like tanks shooting at tanks, and it’s also not going to look like people crawling through tunnels a la Vietnam. What American simultaneously cares enough about politics to risk their life over it, while also being willing to go live in a trench without their phone for a month? No, as long as it’s an option to live a normal life where you can return to your couch and watch or read the news while feeling righteously indignant and engage with social media however you like, that’s what people will do. Look at the January 6’ers, for example, who fully expected to return home and be able to post all about the exciting event all over social media.

    Now, that all goes out the window if some lunatic decides to start WWIII with China and institutes a draft (assuming we don’t all just die in nuclear hellfire). You tell people they’ll have to give up their phones and go live in a trench anyway and maybe some decide they’d rather fight the people making them do that. Americans generally love war, but a lot of that comes from being completely and totally separated from any real life consequences from it. And of course, no insurgency would stand any chance of defeating the US government without foreign support.

  • bamfic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 hours ago

    The first one never ended, just went into a cold phase. Heated up a bit in the 50s and 60s and has been getting a lot hotter the last 10 years or so

  • EnderMB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Haha no.

    A lot of people don’t realise how shit a war can be, even when you’re hundreds of miles away from it. Your local economy fucking TANKS, jobs disappear, workers disappear on the next plane out, and you’re left with a population that’s struggling on all fronts, trying to make a brave face.

    America is full of crazy disparity, but war doesn’t care. The one benefit is that the billionaire class would get fucking rinsed by the locals for every shiny trinket they have when suddenly food costs a fortune because your last shipment got shot up.

      • Dlayknee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Not the original commenter but I’d wager similarly that yes, the vast majority of the American people are far too comfortable to venture into the “inconvenience” of an actual war. Gripe about it from our couches? Yep. Lift a finger to bring about actual change (and no, signing an online petition doesn’t count) in the face of real, actual, severe consequence? …nah.

  • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Sure. Could happen. Imagine trump wins somehow. Then imagine he orders the military to help the Russians or even just orders some people round up like he promises. His disdain for our military is clear. Some generals will follow because he is the president. But others will refuse. And Trump is dumb enough to order his generals to arrest the other generals. Boom, civil war. Or if trump loses… his followers will look for someone else to follow. If someone actually competent shows up, similar path, just 4 years later.

  • untorquer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Could? Ehhh… Not really, at least while the economy is profitable. Liberals will do anything to stay in a union with their conservative colleagues. If we see wall street deteriorate then there’d be a real possibility.

  • selokichtli@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    I think the drug addiction crisis that they have is somehow preventing/delaying this to happen. But the elements for a civil war are there: access to weapons, ideological intolerance, economical imbalance, ever-differing state and federal law and policies, corruption in government and the probable rise of a political group that lost the presidency causing the Capitol Attack out of resentment, between others.

    Democracy in the USA feels like holding with pins. I see the country as conservative to far-right with very few space for other political ideologies.

  • Zier@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    105
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Could it happen? Yes. There is a lot of anger in America. Will it happen in the near (10-15 years) future? No. Why? Watch any and all of the January 6th 2021 videos of the Capitol Riots. That looked like a bunch of alcoholic, mentally ill tailgate partiers tried to take over a nation. It got out of hand and went very, very bad. The only reason they did as much damage as they did, was because actual law enforcement reinforcements were not called in on time. They are just violent idiots who are old, out of shape, delusional about their abilities, and they did not have an actual plan. Civil war is not the immediate threat we face in the USA, it’s the fascism of christianity from within our government that needs to be destroyed. We need a return back to sanity, back to a secular government.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Mostly agreed, but this is naive.

      who are old, out of shape, delusional about their abilities

      I’ll spare you all the anecdotes, but I’ve been around these people and most of them are no joke. They’re neither fat nor lazy nor stupid nor untrained. You only see the fat slobs in their Amazon gear because that’s who we like to make fun of.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      62
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      The only reason they did as much damage as they did, was because actual law enforcement reinforcements were not called in on time.

      Let’s be clear about this: law enforcement was minimal to begin with, and reinforcements were deliberately refused, because the people in charge of them were trying to help the coup succeed.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Let’s be realistic. If it had been a coup attempt, they would have brought weapons.

        To suggest that was an attempted coup, when nobody brought any weapons, is ridiculous.

        • Zier@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 hours ago

          You do know they had guns right? The FBI tracked at least 2 shipments crossing the river by white supremacist groups.

  • elbucho@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    I think that the US is primed to have a civil war. Ever since Reagan fucked the fairness doctrine in 1987, we’ve been getting more and more divided. Gonna sound like an old fogey here, but it used to be that everybody tuned into the same news, and watched the same anchors deliver the same updates about the same world events. We had differing opinions on world events, but we all agreed on what was and what was not reality.

    We don’t have that now. It’s like two completely separate universes occupy the same physical space. In one universe, climate change is fueled by anthropogenic forces and is causing more and more catastrophic damage, viruses are real and vaccines are effective tools to combat them, and thousands of traitors tried to overthrow the government because their cult leader lost an election. In the other? Climate change isn’t real, and also the Democrats have secret hurricane machines that they are using to punish Florida for being a red state, COVID isn’t real, and also it’s a super virus concocted in a lab in Wuhan at the request of Hillary Clinton, vaccines don’t work, and also vaccines are secretly a government tool to kill people, and Jan 6th was a peaceful protest of patriots, and also it was a violent insurrection by Antifa.

    We don’t share the same reality with each other. In one reality, Democrats are basically similar to milquetoast conservatives from any other first world nation, and they care much more about maintaining the status quo than they do about making progress. In the other reality? Democrats are evil incarnate, and they’re waging an active campaign to round up all of the patriots and send them to concentration camps, and they’re also pedophiles and Marxists. In that reality, it’s far more preferable to vote for a dead pimp than it is to vote for a standard, run-of-the-mill Democrat.

    And it’s not just the whole two-realities thing. Ever since Obama became president, the brains of a huge chunk of people in this country just broke. Some of the nicest-seeming people you’d ever met instantly turned into vile, hate-spewing racists, and started mass subscribing to every single conspiracy theory feed out there. That was 16 years ago. Their rhetoric has been getting more violent every year since. That’s to say nothing of the huge increase in terrorist incidents since then - according to the CSIS:

    The number of domestic terrorist attacks and plots against government targets motivated by partisan political beliefs in the past five years is nearly triple the number of such incidents in the previous 25 years combined

    So yeah. I think that this country is primed for organized, mass violence. At this point, all that it’s lacking is the organization. Thankfully, Donald Trump is an incredibly stupid man. I don’t think he’d be capable of organizing people to that level. He can stoke their hatred, for sure. He can inspire the craziest among them to firebomb a mosque or shoot up a Democrat’s office… but he ain’t built to lead people. If someone who had even 1/10th of his prowess as a cult leader, but who was actually intelligent and had a tactical mind came along… hoo boy.

    • Dragonstaff@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Having two different realities is not good. I’m not sure what is to be done about it though. Some people will always choose to believe the easy lie over the difficult truth.

      Ignoring Fox and the crazies for a moment, how often have mainstream networks given equal time to climate change deniers and actual scientists, pretending there was a debate where there wasn’t one.

      I want to push back a little on “we all agreed on what was and what was not reality.” When there were three TV stations, did any of them highlight police brutality? Overincarceration? The military industrial complex? Anything that would hurt their sponsor’s bottom lines?

      The news networks we have today are all owned by large media conglomerates. They range from pro-corporate to pro-fascist. I’m glad that there are enough independent voices that we can hear from people who don’t profit off of the status quo. It’s unfortunate that right wing media is so prevalent and well funded, but if there is an answer to that, it’s not going back to the days when Walter Cronkite, CBS, and Gulf+Western would tell us “That’s the way it is”.

      • elbucho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        18 hours ago

        When there were three TV stations, did any of them highlight police brutality? Overincarceration? The military industrial complex?

        This is a very fair point. True, having very limited news options didn’t allow for a lot of deviation in agreement on observable reality, but to your point, it could also easily paper over a lot of very ugly parts of the actual reality. Chomsky writes quite a lot about this in his book “Manufacturing Consent”, which basically is a dive into how media organizations can be used as the propaganda arm of the government. Everything from choosing what you show to choosing how you talk about things goes towards bolstering an underlying narrative that you want to project.

        I’m not sure what a solution would look like, if one is even possible. But solution or no, the narrative divergence in this country has primed us to detest each other, which is the first crucial step towards mass violence.

    • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      That is what I try to communicate to folks who are freaking out about Trump. You have to worry about the next guy, and the next guy, and the next guy. You can’t just keep voting Democrat, you actually have to get organized if you want to stop fascism, because Trump isn’t the font that fascism springs from, he is an inept conman who is riding the wave.

      • elbucho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 day ago

        True, but have you looked at the “intelligentsia” of the Republican party? They’ve got nobody. Just grifters and sycophants. It’s one more small mercy. Obviously, this situation can’t be counted on to continue indefinitely, but once Trump is gone, the only thing ready to take his place is Trump-based nostalgia, and people looking to profit off same.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          The “intelligentsia” of the Republican Party are dyed-in-the-wool fascist complete monsters like Roger Stone and Steven Miller. They are cunning, dangerous and should not be underestimated.

        • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          I’m more worried about democrats having triangulated into fascism in the medium term tbh. Like competent diet fascism vs incompetent blood and soil fascism

          • elbucho@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            I’m less worried about that, not because there aren’t evil people among the Democrats, but because the Democrats are positioning themselves as the anti-fascist party at the moment. Starting up a fascist movement of their own at the moment would be bad business.

            Long term, though? 100% agree. Can’t trust none of these fucks. Hopefully, the Interstate Popular Vote Compact kicks off before that happens, and we can do away with the EC. Won’t completely solve the problem, but it will help.

            • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              I’m less worried about that, not because there aren’t evil people among the Democrats, but because the Democrats are positioning themselves as the anti-fascist party at the moment. Starting up a fascist movement of their own at the moment would be bad business.

              Their rhetoric sure is, but if you look at their actual policies they’re continuing and escalating some of the worst things Trump did. Migrant concentration camps, massive police funding increases, worsening security and surveillance laws, the whole nine yards.

              Also, fascism is the reassertion of the dominance of financial capital over the system and the democrats take money from the banks just as much as the Republicans.

  • Vanth@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    1 day ago

    Of course it could happen. Do I think it will happen in the next two months as we get through election season? Nah.

    I also don’t think a civil war in modern days would look anything like it did in the 1860s. Aside from the obvious advance in weapons and tactics, there’s no convenient clear line between one half and the other like there was with North/South. It would look more like civil wars do in other countries in the 21st century.

    • MissJinx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Modern civil war happens when a domestic terrorist group starts to act agains the government.

      For a full on civil war the army would habe to break apart in factions too, and I don’t thinl that’s probable in the us

  • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Short answer: yes

    Longer answer: I would argue we’ve already had a few civil wars since the “War Between the States” in the 1860s. Reconstruction was arguably another civil war. The labor rights war of the early twentieth century included federal troops attacking organizing coal miners and federal agents along with private security forces attacking striking workers elsewhere. The violence of the civil rights movement (remember: the president had to call in the national guard to enforce integration) would also qualify as a civil war by some standards.

    Listen to the first limited series of the podcast It Could Happen Here for an idea of how a more involved civil war could start. The idea is that there would not be clear battle lines drawn up because our divide now is more urban vs rural, and people in rural areas have opportunities to attack infrastructure that would have significant impacts on urban areas.

  • tomatolung@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    So I talked to a PhD who’s work covered civil wars across the world, and asked about this. Turns out there are several signs you need to see which makes a civil war more likely. Most of which we haven’t even gotten close to, because many of them are economic related and right now the US is still the single largest economy in the world where peoples standard of living is still very comfortable.

    I asked ChatGPT to describe this and these are the highlights, in order of historical priority?

    • Political instability and weak governance are present.
    • There are deep ethnic, religious, or sectarian tensions.
    • The economy is declining with high inequality.
    • Persistent social unrest and widespread protests occur.
    • External powers are interfering or supporting different factions.
    • There is significant resource scarcity and competition.
    • Militarization and proliferation of arms increase.
    • Systematic human rights violations and repression take place.
    • Society experiences strong ideological polarization.
    • Demographic pressures such as rapid population growth or urbanization exist.
    • The rule of law and justice systems are breaking down.
    • Historical grievances and unresolved conflicts resurface.

    Note that the US does have some of these, but not to the evident level that you saw in Rwanda, Sudan, Yugoslavia, Syria, Burundi, Eritrea, Somalia, Libya, Myanmar, Haiti, and others. In short, if you look at the indicators, although the US is indeed troubled, it’s not troubled enough for people to hot the streets with more than riotous intent.

    • witty_username@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      I am actually quite alarmed by this. It seems like all it is going to take is for a couple of years of drought to dry up the waterways and crop yields.

      And we have seen the start of this already, with the water level of the Mississippi dropping to the point of preventing boats to go through

      • BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Every person is three meals away from being radicalized. Not my quote, not sure who it’s attributed to, but I’ve seen it on the internet over the years.

        I agree, shit will really hit the fan when people can’t find food/water anymore, or at least have it not be readily available. Personally, I think it’s coming sooner than people are expecting just because climate change will compound on itself year over year, and we’re doing damn near nothing to mitigate any damage (still pumping ground water up like it’s an instantly renewable resource to water golf courses in the dessert, for example).

        But radical people tend to be desperate for change, and most people get desperate when they start to actually get hungry.

    • xerxos@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      Deutsch
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      21 hours ago

      Let’s go point by point:

      • Political instability and weak governance are present.

      • No

      • There are deep ethnic, religious, or sectarian tensions.

      • Yes

      • The economy is declining with high inequality.

      • Economy: not declining - Inequality: high

      • Persistent social unrest and widespread protests occur.

      • Might happen if Trump loses or steals the presidency

      • External powers are interfering or supporting different factions.

      • Yes, big time

      • There is significant resource scarcity and competition.

      • Not yet, but global warming might make this happen

      • Militarization and proliferation of arms increase.

      • Well, it’s the USA

      • Systematic human rights violations and repression take place.

      • Might happen under Trump

      • Society experiences strong ideological polarization.

      • Yes

      • Demographic pressures such as rapid population growth or urbanization exist.

      • No

      • The rule of law and justice systems are breaking down.

      • No

      • Historical grievances and unresolved conflicts resurface.

      • No

  • over_clox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    Alternate question…

    What the fuck is a ‘battleground’ state, and why does the media even have the nerve to use that term? I mean I know what it basically means, they should stick with ‘swing’ state, instead of putting the word ‘battle’ into nutjob’s heads just before an election.

    I don’t care what people’s political opinions are, but we already have enough gun nuts out there, and at least a couple attempts on the former president’s life.

    You can’t even feel safe sending your kids to school in numerous areas, and can’t even always feel safe in a Walmart these days.

    Are you sure we’re not already in a civil war?

    • GrabtharsHammer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 day ago

      Our culture phrases damn near everything in metaphors of war. The war on drugs. The battle of the bands. Bob lost his battle with cancer. It’s absolutely pervasive, to the point it’s almost as invisible as the air.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I guess if we’re going to keep using war and conflict terms you could say we’re in a cold civil war.

      We might as well call schools “sporadic shooting galleries” the way we’ve been treating the issue… It’s absolutely absurd :(