It's inevitable, and I'm tired of pretending it's not.
One factor I think about often is the numbers required for fighting to break out. Military age males. America has an ongoing overweight/obesity problem that doesn't show signs of abating. To me this speaks to a level of comfort and complacency and I struggle to see those men engaging in actual fighting (but I freely admit I could be wrong on this point). The subset of military age males not overweight/obese and I wonder how this numerically compares - someone has to do the fighting for the disaffected.
My second comment is that I think serious consideration should be made at how rapidly Foreign powers and interests would intervene and involve themselves. America is geographically powerful and people want a piece of that. It is hard to imagine it remaining a civil war for more than a few days in my mind, the scale of involvement would be dramatic.
Hi Paul, I liked your article a lot, and because such things are extremely difficult to predict I'm very interested in the opinions of others here, because I definitely agree that the status quo is too painful to continue for long. However, I'm curious to read your opinion on the following two thoughts:
1) It's difficult for me to see how we could fight a civil war without a total economic collapse. This isn't 1865 where 80% of Americans were still subsistence farmers. The internet will go down, the power grid will go down, trucks will stop, everything depends on everything else, the stores are empty, and within a month 95%+ of Americans are dead.
2) The number one most important trend that I see in America is a term that I am borrowing from Aryn Elaine, the Consciousness Split. Right now the top 10-20% or so of people are just supercharging their lives using the Internet, while the remainder are utterly collapsing into porn, videogames, low testosterone, phones, and general hatred of masculinity. So the vast majority of people are simply incapable of doing anythings, and the functional people have little incentive to engage in a high casualty civil war when they are doing fine.
Either there is economic collapse of some kind, or there is not.
If there is not, then we will continue to "reform" into a 21st century police state, with enough comfort and illusions of freedom to keep the masses in line. We are already there, but we will go more there. There will not be a widespread or meaningful armed revolt against the regime. That is a fantasy. On the bright side we may see a continued assertion of states' rights. These things, the police state with the illusion of freedom, and the assertion of states' rights, are already happening.
But if there is a true economic collapse, one that deprives the regime of its finances, then all bets are off. As long as the regime can afford to buy power, it will. Successfully. Since money is what this society worships above all. When the regime no longer has the money to buy the power it wields, then you'll see real change. But not before.
I have an impossible time picturing the Americans I just witnessed lock down, mask up, and get jabbed, with not very much protest, suddenly turning around and fighting a civil war along state lines.
Excellent read Paul and something I have been struggling with for some time.
I'm interested in your thoughts on tribal breakdowns. Red vs Blue, while a helpful paradigm for Whites, doesn't account for the masses of brown "new Americans" nor the various tribes of jews, Muslims, Indians (dot) and Blacks all with varying degrees of high in-group preference. It would seem to me that even hard Red States like Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Tennessee would see internecine conflict between rural and urban.
Very interesting read, well thought and written. You expressed the same way I’ve thought about the ungodly amount of casualties there’d be, especially in the early stages, just from the collapse of our infrastructure and starvation alone.
I really hope with everything in me that it doesn’t happen though, that decency, normalcy, and prosperity can come peacefully.
Great post. I'm glad I was shown this site.
You at least twice mention "BAP."
I looked back for meaning. No go or maybe eyes too old.
No abbreviations please. You write too well to devolve into cryptic meaningless inside-joke type stuff
What is BAP?
The dollar must fall. Its just that simple. As long as the dollar is the US currency the incentives drive people to continue to live as they always have for the most part. Which may very well happen, but regardless of whatever turmoil, largely nothing will change until the dollar stops having value in America.
I appreciate your efforts, Mr. Fahrenheidt, to look to the future, to examine scenarios, and to anticipate what is likely to happen. That said though, sir, I think more attention should be spent on sparking events which might lead to the conflagration of war, instead of simply tallying the supply of flammable material in red and blue states. If I understand correctly, during the pre-Civil War period, there were similar enmities between North and South. What *triggered* the War, however, was northern Federalists who imposed, by means of the Federal government, tariffs which were disadvantageous to the South. It might be good to examine possible Federal actions by blue states to further disadvantage the red ones. Although it seems that such actions would have to be extreme, as the blue federal actions taken which have deindustrialized red states, and turned them into 'flyover' country, have already done great damage to red states.
I fear, though, that your timeline for the self-demolition of the U.S. (2030 or so) may be just a tad optimistic. The swamp creatures of the current U.S. administrative (or 'deep') state have been pushing for the ruin of Russia, and for the parking of nuclear missiles on Russia's borders, for the last 30 years. Russia in general, and Putin in particular, consider both of those to be existential threats, worthy of retaliation via global thermonuclear war. The U.S./NATO alliance shows no signs of stopping such threats, and the current presidential administration looks likely to be ousted in 2024. It would therefore be tempting for that administration to take action which could not be undone by a later administration.
One scenario which troubles me greatly is the possibility that the current President, and the administrative state he rode in on, would so escalate the 'special military action' in Ukraine to the point that it proceeds to MADness: Mutually Assured Destruction. I fear that your estimate of 100 to 200 megadeaths in the U.S. would be entirely accurate, with most of them occurring in blue states on the left and right coast. I could easily see the current administration either ordering that blue survivors be housed in red states, or, more likely, that that administration would declare martial law, and suspend presidential elections.
Either of those situations, and more likely the latter, would be the necessary *casus belli* for your suggested new Civil War.
With Humility I’ve been saying a version of this for some years…
2. Many regional conflicts in the rest of World as the global hegemon America contracts into its internal war.
3. Western Hemispheric war centered around America as try as they might Mexico cannot escape this round with 10% of its population in America, this has the effect of a cunning strategic trap intended or not. Canada is under Trudeau at least no longer a sovereign nation. Also while not widely known the big winner of NAFTA was the great Lakes region - a $6 Trillion economy for both sides and it is industrial and agronomy not “finance”. I will say whoever takes it and holds that wins the long fight.
Sucking in Mexico and Canada means they must seek allies (or at least Mexico will). That can only be Russia or China as they must be nuclear powers, moreover both are motivated to strike at the great tormentor USA.
I don’t think nuclear war is certain.
I do think some version of the 3 wars above is already moving.
Having said that- I don’t think one can count on the Blue states National Guard or police following their beloved Dem Governors and mayors. I am a just now left army-NG veteran of some 2 decades, in a word NO.
The Dems and libs can probably trust their soldiers and police less than anyone. In fact they don’t.
This doesn’t mean the Blues won’t have troops or police.
Just not the ones they have now.
These are never hard to find in war as long as you have men.
What Blue does have is vital to success of armies; Above all organization, logistics, money, finance, intelligence, communications.
Above all Team Blue is cohesive and committed. Team Red doesn’t exist.
Trump is not a war leader , we’d know. He had his chance and ran.
He will do for now, we’ll not get any war orders from him, be not dependent on that- basically he lost when he gave up Flynn.
Team Red doesn’t exist and will be difficult to conjure from the ether, nothing happens by itself. The inertia does not work for us.
There’s movement now because of Dobbs, there will have to be a shock or series of shocks coming from the enemy to get both real leadership and organization.
For an actual war instead of Blue hunting Red to extinction the Veterans must jump in.
The Veterans will not join something that does not exist, there must be organization.
In short Red will have all the fighters and no organization to even feed never mind supply, pay. Blue will have everything else. < >!please note well professional soldiers think logistics, amateur soldiers think tactics. <
Blue does strategy very well.
Red does AR-15 pics well and cannot understand it, they think its going to be a day at the range.
Red (I’m Red) are only potential and don’t exist, never mind commit. Red GOP and actividts are frankly a lot of women and men who are children at power.
We also have a profound lack of commitment and total lack of organization. “We just want to be left alone “ which means…yer dead, buckwheat. That’s going to be a lot of dead people right there, and the Petit Bourgeoisie are dominant in Red, they may all be considered Libertarians in any test (selfish).
What then else does Red have?
Strategic Depth and room to maneuver, train, gather resources, organize, build armies and the support infrastructure.
Most of the veterans (who come from the same families). A great deal of sympathy from the extant police (who can quickly be replaced- warning). Most of the farmers, skilled labor, workers, at present the brightest light is the truckers. Forget the ARs.
Get the truckers and get the fuel distribution system and get the truckers fuel and DEF. Grabbing the fuel is Insurgency and war 101. This we could do, and it immediately reverses our organization and logistics fatal flaws (and dear sir the outcome is very, very much in doubt as favorable to us).
The Germans won in 1941 against USSR because each panzer division had 1500 trucks, the Soviets failed and their superior armor in numbers and quality (yes) failed because they ran out of fuel and parts - they had few trucks. In 44 the Russians had US trucks and won.
Trucks and petroleum system sir.
Forget the rest.
This we Reds can do.
And the best Trucker leaders are worth more than any politician in sight…
The wild cards for me are Hawaii and Alaska, Canada and Mexico, Russia and China.
If the US falls into internecine warfare, some of the outlying parts are going to be tempting to other nations. Maybe not for outright invasion, but certainly for 'assistance and humanitarian intervention.'
Hawaii is just too perfect for China not to take some kind of interest. Especially if much of the fleet is distracted by West Coast warfare. To a lesser extent, Russia (and/or China) may see an opportunity for some kind of presence on both sides of the Bering. These things more than anything else could end the conflict, especially after both Red and Blue start suffering greatly from extended conflict.
Not too worried about Texas. As much as they're interested in discouraging illegal immigration, the good ol' boys and the Tejanos have a long history of working together. Both would rather be Americans (or Texans anyway) than Mexicans. And frankly, Mexico probably wouldn't even be able to launch any sort of official invasion if they wanted to. But the unofficial one has already captured a significant portion of the southwest, and there may be some redrawing of the southern borders of Arizona, New Mexico and California...
Both Mexico and Canada will also be involved if land forces from the Red and Blue need to get around instead of through each other's held territory. The Red has a huge advantage here, accounting for the vast majority of both borders. But Canada would probably be (officially) amenable to Blue instead, unless the government heads in a very different direction over the next few years.
It might not be impossible that a Red team flush with victories decides to expand northward, and many of the residents of Western Canada might not be averse to an alternative to their current government. Still, the whole thing has a sort of "Napoleon/Hitler invading Russia" feel to it, so hopefully the Red team would think twice about committing too much in that direction. It would certainly be an excuse for Europe to get more directly involved, and the globalist EU (though perhaps not each member state, wholeheartedly) will almost definitely go with Blue if a choice had to be made.
Both China and Russia will take full advantage of the opportunity to increase their influence in other countries in which the US can no longer maintain a presence. Russia would probably aid Red (from a safe diplomatic distance), but China would probably play both sides of the fence. Currently, the bulk of commercial interests reside (at least in leadership and ownership), with Blue. China will do whatever serves China's economy the best. They're not going to aid one and cut off the other unless they see a significant long-term advantage to doing so.
Wouldn't it be interesting if it was Russia and China's mutual amity that ended up bringing about an end to the 2nd US Civil War? Imagine a peace treaty (or even a Marshall Plan) brokered by our current supposed 'existential threats.'
While I do see war is likely, the moment WE the people set it off, our own government will bring in the UN troops. Mostly Chinese, I think that soon enough, the people will realize they are the enemy and our fury will be redirected if only for a short time till we wipe them out. Cause make no mistake, they won't be here to create peace, they will be here to concur us all. What WE the people need to realize is, we're all being duped into hating each other. If we set all that aside and combined forces to wipe out the Mainstream news, Billionaires like Soros, Schwab and the other elites. I bet we could live in peace without feeling a need to harm one another.
Thank you for your time and thoughts. So many of these posts are being written, that it indicates "the writing is on the wall" regarding our future.
Question. Why would Team Red besiege Blue cities; to what benefit? With the food shortages that will assuredly occur, the Blue Cities will empty very quickly. I see the challenge for Team Red not in taking the cities, but keeping the people escaping the cities from taking over Red territory with shear numbers of migrants. Thoughts?
Paul, in your Second Civil War scenario, can you make a guess as to which parts of America would suffer the most? Northeast? Northwest? Southeast? Southwest? Etc.
I really hope it doesn't come to pass although I fear you may well be right. To what extent do you see Mexico and Canada getting involved in all of this? I live right on the southern border and I always keep hearing about acts of barbarism committed by cartels.
I know Tennessee was last out, first back in during the first civil war. I assume you meant to include it in the Red State list.