This was partially brought on by the World War Three thread by roydotor2000, but has been on my mind for a while. I may just totally be off my computer chair, but is there enough tension in the U.S. for another Civil War? Or will there ever be?
Might be a stupid question, but, you mention possibly high tensions. In your opinion what do you attribute the tensions to, and by that I mean to ask, what would be the point of dispute, the splitting topic, the different sides?
In your opinion what do you attribute the tensions to
I think the main reasons are: Government/politics World views Religion I
think the nation would destroy itself
Probably. Most of the resources would be gone along with huge amounts of life/land
Reflection: My personal opinion is that US civil war will not happen again. There are laws against breaking away. The only way states could form would be in secret and there are bound to be whistle blowers. Could it: Yes Would it: Probably not Should it: YES DEFINITELY just kidding. lol I do want to see positive change, but I do not think that will happen if CIVIL WAR II breaks out.
I don't see the United States ever having another civil war. For one, our military is too highly advanced and unified to just split in half. If a region of the country were to secede and attack the federal government, they would have to go against the most powerful military system in the world. Sure, they could muster up a few foot soldiers here and there, but it wouldn't be like in the 1860's where both sides had comparable technology, manpower and resources.
I could see states from certain areas of the country seceding peacefully from the Union--indeed, plenty of states petitioned to and received thousands of signatures following the 2012 presidential election--but it would be a stupid decision on their part, as they would no longer be protected by the United States Military. At least, not to the extent that they already are.
I think the main reasons are: Government/politics World views Religion I
I agree with it not happening BUT if it did happen some countries might pick side so variable a chooses civil war side b while variable b chooses civil war side a then north korea might go insane and start nuke bombing (not likely but possible) making this perhaps into a world war 3. Not very likely but still most everything is a possibility.
I agree with it not happening BUT if it did happen some countries might pick side so variable a chooses civil war side b while variable b chooses civil war side a then north korea might go insane and start nuke bombing (not likely but possible) making this perhaps into a world war 3. Not very likely but still most everything is a possibility.
No it won't.....Why would in the very unlikely event that a civil war breaks out, would North Korea throw down the gauntlet and start an invasion which realistically makes no purpose, and won't get further than it's own sea borders? It's a starving, devastated, anxious nation with hardly the capability to prop its ownself up. Not a conjecture that is well reasoned out.
I opine that a civil war won't happen. Key factors are missing that make the situation differ greatly from the 19th century. I think the historic term Sectionalism applies to a great degree in this context - it referred to the differing life styles, social norms, customs, political make-p of the North and South, which grew increasingly wide and fractionalised in the earlier half of the 19th century to the run up of the war. Take for instance, the fact that economic discrepancies of contemporary times are not as vastly varied from the past, whereby the South was much more dependent on slavery, which made any bill targeting it extremely sensitive and prickly. Fears of slave revolts and abolitionist elements involved in such activities were pertinent, as they struck at the heart and survival of Southern life, which made the South not only hostile, but militantly suspicious.
However today, globalization, and intra-country trade has made each state far more dependent on each others' cooperation, much more interlinked, such that cutting ties suddenly, throwing up new borders, new economic tariffs would ruin many. We still see sectionalism no doubt between states, but America today has embraced a far more uniting identity, which runs no where as deep as the past, nor does it run as deep to warrant a war. We must also consider that many out-of-state citizens now live in each state, due to the ease of immigration and work-related travel, which would definitely hamper any state's attempt to secede.
Furthermore, we must also consider the fact that if the federal government disagrees with secessionist attempts, any revolts would go off like a damp firework; there's no way that each State National Guard unit will stand up to the federal forces.
Do you seriously expect a population that can't organize a decent protest to somehow be capable of carrying out a civil war? The last protest of any mentionable size was 'Occupy Wall Street', and that was a flaccid attempt at best. We're talking about a population who believes that sitting around in tents for long periods of time will bring about change, and a population that thinks those same events are akin to terrorist activities.
This country contains a very complacent and bi-polar population. People are more than happy to send other to fight wars, yet they claim to be a nonviolent person. They demand that the government cut it's spending and get out of the lives of citizens, yet they also expect that welfare/social security/Medicare they need to survive. We can't decide on whether we hate or love the government. We can't live with it, yet we can't live without it.
To put it in perspective, the French have better protests than the US. The Greeks have better protests. The Spanish (at least for now) have better protests. Those protests were over lesser-or-equal issues than we've had to endure over here. We're a complacent bunch of well-wishing fodder that could not raise a hand against the government. We've been beaten into submission and submissiveness by the very people we've elected to rule this country.
How do you expect a population that can't organize a peaceful protest to carry out a violent war on their soil?
Because their conservative nature rooted in fundamentalist Christendom is ever more contrasting with the progressive world, as can be seen in their historic and present resistance to equality. They caused the first one to begin with anyways, because they refused to give up their "god given right" of owning another human being...
I don't think it's so implausible. There's quite a lot of tension in the US now. Our country is split down the middle between ever more radical Democrats and Republicans, our economy isn't going too well, there's a lot of social issues like abortion, evolution, gun rights, and homosexuality that are creating a stir, in addition to xenophobic sentiments towards hispanics/middle eastern persons. Something would have to spark a conflict though.
nichodemus (don't think i copied the link copying the name) iwas just saying 1 out of a perhaps limitless number of things that could happen at ever differing chances in a american civil war north korea just came into my mine but thanks for the knowledge of why not it will happen that way.
Our country is split down the middle between ever more radical Democrats and Republicans.
For that perhaps add liberals maybe but get the message.
I agree with Voidy on this. You cannot make this giant nation start another Civil War. There are way too many people now, and I don't think any of us really care enough to start killing each other over things. Americans would crap their pants if they saw fighting up close and personal on the homefront.
The "Deep South"? There are a few pockets of backwater hickville people in all of the Southern states who would be proud to call themselves part of the Deep South, but there aren't nearly enough of these gun-crazy folks to start a whole 'nother Civil War.
