United States US presidential election 2024

[Cherico]

I also think this talk is tired.

Because I don't think america is any where close to actual civil war.

we haven't seen mass nulification, we haven't seen most of all of the nonviolent tools used to show displeasure. People for the most part don't jump to civil war unless things have been really bad for a really long time. We will see populists figures rise and other such things for awhile before people give up on the peaceful methods of conflict resolution.

 

[Grimalkin]

No, a fight that involves nukes is a fight that is happening after the PR war has been rendered moot.

Because in your tactically challenged mind, you are assuming the nukes are coming out as an opening move against cities, instead of as a counter against rebel armored formations, logistical hubs, and possibly even rebel nuke units long after the fighting has rendered the media war irrelevant.

A fight that involves nukes in that scenario would render the U.S a pariah in the eyes of the international community regardless of the 'media war', you would have become the new North Korea to the rest of us regardless of the justifications you might have.

It's still a matter of mutually assured destruction because you can't afford to nuke yourselves.

 

[Bacle]

Again, I don't want to. I simply acknowledge reality, something you cannot do.

Except it's not reality, it's your dumbass and the take of those who do not understand how things are actually progressing on the ground there.

Plus, Russia has lost a lot of it's Black Sea Fleet, the thing Crimea was so important for, to a nation without a meaningful navy, and the Kerch is getting hit more and more frequently.

The Russian occupiers in Crimea are going to become effective hostages when the land bridge is severed and the Kerch is put out of commission.

But given how tactically challenged you are, and how dumb your takes on international relations/affairs usually are, I'm not surprised nuances like that might elude you. Like, you don't even seems to consider that if Russia gets to keep anything, it will take that as reason to try again for the rest next Russian or American election cycle; Russia must be made to accept and acknoledge defeat, lest they end up with the same 'we didn't lose' bullshit that infested Germany after WW1 and led to WW2.

Because you cannot fathom the mindsets of people like Swalwell or Putin.

Swalwell's open talk of using nukes domestically exists because many Dems have an understanding/mindset that their ultimate weapon against uppity conservatives deciding to actually rebel is nukes, and that who control the codes for nukes controls pretty much everything that matters.

But what this is really about is your grudge against me for calling out your idiotic foreign policy takes and for calling out AnCap stupidity for what it really is; this thread is just another excuse to exercise said grudge.

 

[Zachowon]

Why is the guy who is IN THE MILITARY actively being ignored on something like this?
Do you think most soldiers would want to risk thier families lives by taking a side or not defending thier families?
Let alone every other branch

 

[LordsFire]

Why is the guy who is IN THE MILITARY actively being ignored on something like this?
Do you think most soldiers would want to risk thier families lives by taking a side or not defending thier families?
Let alone every other branch

Bacle has made up his mind, and no amount of facts, evidence, logic, or history, is going to change it on this.

It'd probably take an actual civil war to change it.

Hopefully, we never come to that.

 

[Bacle]

Why is the guy who is IN THE MILITARY actively being ignored on something like this?
Do you think most soldiers would want to risk thier families lives by taking a side or not defending thier families?
Let alone every other branch

And right here is where we see that you are naive enough to think that there will be a neutral side to any domestic conflict.

Because it's not that they will want to pick a side, it's that they won't have a choice of neutrality in such a fight.

There will be those who take orders from a illegit but nuke armed regime in DC and those that side with rebels; there is no third option of neutrality in a conflict like this, if it has gotten to the point of open, armed conflict.

Which is also why I expect most of the military will follow DC regardless, because DC will have more resources to send after the families of rebels than the rebels will have to send after the people who follow DC.

Plus, I think a lot of soldiers are more afraid of the UCMJ and Leavenworth than they are of the Constitution being rendered null and void by the actions of DC.

I might not have thought this way before the Wu Flu/Wu Flu Vax shit and the military brass taking part in the coup/stolen election against Trump. But those are things that have happened and now I have no faith the military will ever actually stand up against the abuses of DC or the illegit actions taken by the powers in DC.

Bacle has made up his mind, and no amount of facts, evidence, logic, or history, is going to change it on this.

It'd probably take an actual civil war to change it.

Hopefully, we never come to that.

Wu Flu, Wu Flu vax bullshit, the stolen election/coup of 2020 and the military leaderships role in that, the bungling of the A-stan withdrawal, Milley saying he'd warn the CCP if we were going to war...

Those are facts too, facts that have laid bare most of the military is more scared of the UCMJ and Leavenworth, or just an 'other than honorable' discharge, and of the powers in DC who lead them, than they are of our Constitution being gutted/rendered moot and our civil liberties being suspended/removed under false or flimsy pretexts.

This is also why I don't expect a ACW 2.0 or any sort of revolution/rebellion in the US; the majority of the country, not just the military, has bought the lies of the Biden admin and Dems with regards to Trump and his supporters.

 

[Zachowon]

And right here is where we see that you are naive enough to think that there will be a neutral side to any domestic conflict.

Because it's not that they will want to pick a side, it's that they won't have a choice of neutrality in such a fight.

There will be those who take orders from a illegit but nuke armed regime in DC and those that side with rebels; there is no third option of neutrality in a conflict like this, if it has gotten to the point of open, armed conflict.

Which is also why I expect most of the military will follow DC regardless, because DC will have more resources to send after the families of rebels than the rebels will have to send after the people who follow DC.

Plus, I think a lot of soldiers are more afraid of the UCMJ and Leavenworth than they are of the Constitution being rendered null and void by the actions of DC.

I might not have thought this way before the Wu Flu/Wu Flu Vax shit and the military brass taking part in the coup/stolen election against Trump. But those are things that have happened and now I have no faith the military will ever actually stand up against the abuses of DC or the illegit actions taken by the powers in DC.

Wu Flu, Wu Flu vax bullshit, the stolen election/coup of 2020 and the military leaderships role in that, the bungling of the A-stan withdrawal, Milley saying he'd warn the CCP if we were going to war...

Those are facts too, facts that have laid bare most of the military is more scared of the UCMJ and Leavenworth, or just an 'other than honorable' discharge, and of the powers in DC who lead them, than they are of our Constitution being gutted/rendered moot and our civil liberties being suspended/removed under false or flimsy pretexts.

This is also why I don't expect a ACW 2.0 or any sort of revolution/rebellion in the US; the majority of the country, not just the military, has bought the lies of the Biden admin and Dems with regards to Trump and his supporters.

The US military will either have a split itself or will just not get invivled unless martial law is called, and with the threat of thier families being killed, they will have a schism

 

[Bacle]

The US military will either have a split itself or will just not get invivled unless martial law is called, and with the threat of thier families being killed, they will have a schism

Zach, do you really think we'd get to the level of domestic strife and unrest needed for something close to an ACW 2.0 WITHOUT martial law being declared, at least on a state by state basis?

Also, given DC will likely have a better idea where military family's are than the rebels, why would you think the rebels, and not DC, would be more likely to go after the families of soldiers who are following one side or the other.

I don't think there would be a schism, because anyone likely to schism will probably be pushed out of the military by that point; this isn't something where the fighting starts all of a sudden out of nowhere.

 

[ShieldWife]

I don’t see a civil war as that likely. Though if it happens, I would imagine that the military would largely sit it out. The rebels aren’t going to have to rely on guerrilla tactics, they shouldn’t even interact with the military at all. It will be federal law enforcement versus domestic terrorists.

Nukes would be useless in this scenario. There would be no concentration of enemy to make nukes worth while. Also, there would still be a propaganda battle and a lot of people who support the establishment might change their minds if the government starts mad murdering random civilians.

Using a nuke like that might motivate the military to take a role in the only significant way they could - which would be to depose the leaders who are mass murdering their own people.

 

[Bacle]

I don’t see a civil war as that likely. Though if it happens, I would imagine that the military would largely sit it out. The rebels aren’t going to have to rely on guerrilla tactics, they shouldn’t even interact with the military at all. It will be federal law enforcement versus domestic terrorists.

Nukes would be useless in this scenario. There would be no concentration of enemy to make nukes worth while. Also, there would still be a propaganda battle and a lot of people who support the establishment might change their minds if the government starts mad murdering random civilians.

Using a nuke like that might motivate the military to take a role in the only significant way they could - which would be to depose the leaders who are mass murdering their own people.

Why do you there are people in DC ok with giving illegal immigrants the ability to enlist?

They want people loyal to the powers in DC, not any particular state or locality.

DC wants their Janissaries made of foreign born, but loyal to DC, troops to call on in the event the need to suppress a domestic rebellion by native-born folks in particular areas.

Also, there are things rebels could do which would warrant nukes, particularly if local governments rebel against DC and eject DC controlled forces from sensitive DoD installations in likely rebels areas, not just nuisance guerilla shit by militia LARPers. Or if someone in the rebels managed to subborn a Boomer or two, well, rebels with nukes can justify DC using them.

I mean, why do you all keep assuming rebels wouldn't try to get their own nukes, even from foreign sources, to use against large DC controlled areas, such as the military bases and blue cities who already hate the prospective rebels?

In a domestic conflict in the US, nukes may not be something just the US gov would have, and that is the nightmare people like Swalwell want to contain and mitigate with his own willingness to use nukes.

 

[ShieldWife]

Snip

I agree that they want immigrants to enlist in large part to make the military less loyal to the American people. Still though, unless the rebels are being really dumb, there isn’t that much for the military to do. There may be a few special forces who can participate but for the most part, fighting the rebels will involve investigations not tanks.

Who would the government nuke? An entire town because some rebels might be hiding among the civilian populace? Don’t you think that such insane behavior would turn some people against the state who on their side to start with?

 

[Bacle]

I agree that they want immigrants to enlist in large part to make the military less loyal to the American people. Still though, unless the rebels are being really dumb, there isn’t that much for the military to do. There may be a few special forces who can participate but for the most part, fighting the rebels will involve investigations not tanks.

Who would the government nuke? An entire town because some rebels might be hiding among the civilian populace? Don’t you think that such insane behavior would turn some people against the state who on their side to start with?

You keep assuming that nukes would be used as anti-city weapon first and foremost in such a conflict, this is a mistaken assumption.

Nukes in the domestic conflict are for dealing with rebel hardened assets (any large tank or military formations made of stolen gear in rebel hands that has sufficeint AA ionto make normal airstrikes non-viable, for instance) or if some sensitive stuff ends up in rebel hands that is makes it safer to nuke them than leave them in control of it or risk a regular assault/air strike.

Nukes would also be in play for use against any rebel units who end up with nukes.

And a 5-kiloton nuke blast that some low yield tactical warheads have would be rather contained affairs compared to multi-megaton city buster. A nuclear bunker buster being used against some rebel unit who might have nukes of their own is a much different PR look than flattening Dallas because Texas wants out.

 

[Wargamer08]

You keep assuming that nukes would be used as anti-city weapon first and foremost in such a conflict, this is a mistaken assumption.

Nukes in the domestic conflict are for dealing with rebel hardened assets (any large tank or military formations made of stolen gear in rebel hands that has sufficeint AA ionto make normal airstrikes non-viable, for instance) or if some sensitive stuff ends up in rebel hands that is makes it safer to nuke them than leave them in control of it or risk a regular assault/air strike.

Nukes would also be in play for use against any rebel units who end up with nukes.

And a 5-kiloton nuke blast that some low yield tactical warheads have would be rather contained affairs compared to multi-megaton city buster. A nuclear bunker buster being used against some rebel unit who might have nukes of their own is a much different PR look than flattening Dallas because Texas wants out.

My guy there is a reason to date zero tactical nukes are known to have been used. To Joe Normie, a nuke is a nuke is a nuke. Considering the triple think line a government would be running to use active military against citizens in country, any use of nukes would be such a detrimental it would be insane to use them for any reason. Hell the most anti-nuke people on the planet are the same hard-core democrats you propose would be running their side of the Civil war.

 

[Bacle]

My guy there is a reason to date zero tactical nukes are known to have been used. To Joe Normie, a nuke is a nuke is a nuke. Considering the triple think line a government would be running to use active military against citizens in country, any use of nukes would be such a detrimental it would be insane to use them for any reason. Hell the most anti-nuke people on the planet are the same hard-core democrats you propose would be running their side of the Civil war.

Most Democrats don't think they need nukes, or any real military force, to suppress their enemies at home. It's just that they are considered an 'option', in the event of a civil conflict, unlike on the Right.

And I remind you Swalwell is a Democrat, and is the one who talked about being willing to use nukes in the event of a domestic conflict between Dems and the GOP.

I didn't start this line of rhetoric, the Dems did; unlike many here I just also happen to take such threats seriously and understand how 'anti-nuke' Dems could still see them as trump cards for domestic conflicts.

This is a place where the GOP/Right just doesn't seem to want to understand the mindset of their opponents, because the implications undermine so much of what the Right likes to think about US domestic conflicts. If they admit some Dems in DC leadership would be willing to use nukes on domestic rebels/insurgents/etc, and that said Dems are serious, it may mean asking uncomfortable questions about other assumptions that they have of how the Democrats see them.

 

[Wargamer08]

Democrats are ignorant, news at 11. I do not doubt their ideological fervor, nor do I take their statements of ire lightly. For one I think Antifa is a core of well organized, practiced and ruthless individuals screened by paid for disposable clowns that make up the bulk of their numbers.

It's just, some Democrats don't know which end of the gun bullets come out of or even how to take the safety off or load it. Taking those same idiots seriously about the how of a civil war is stupid. I don't doubt their sincerity, I do believe that they would use force against their rivals. I also know that blustering talk of nuking MAGAnation is so hilariously wrong-headed they might as be ranting again about the features of an AR15.

 

[DarthOne]

I don't know about you, but I'd rather prepare and found out I did so for nothing, then not prepare and be caught with my pants around my ankles.

Just a thought. You are welcome to take it or leave it.

 

[Blasterbot]

Ronna Romney has decided that to stop the orange man we need 2 more debates on CNN. god dammit. the 1st one had like 12 million views. the 4th has had like 2. this is not gonna move the needle. in other news outside of Iowa Desantis is now in 3rd place pretty consistently. Trump is now sitting above 60% nationally. considering that to get any delegates you need to exceed 20% in the winner take most states? this looks like it is gonna be exactly as one sided as expected. good thing we invested all that time and donor money on one of the most expensive primaries in history instead of focusing on the ground game and down ballot races.

 

[Captain X]

Unless a militia has AA, orbital assets, and nukes of their own, they are no more than a nuisance for LEO's to handle, not a threat to the state that would make them stop with the vote/election fraud.

So no amount of 'keeping your gun by your side' is going to shift the needle in US domestic politics, because the fact is that no amount of force, or threat of force, by the populace is sufficient to actually do anything, and thinking it will is part of why the Right/GOP keep shooting themselves in the metaphorical foot by thinking they can always threaten to vote with bullets, instead of ballots.

And no, comparing the US populace to A-stan or Veitnam isn't going to help either, because the US domestic side exists in a wholly different context and society.

There is no revolution or ACW 2.0 that can be made to work, and the sooner people stop thinking a 'gun by their side' will actually have any effect on US politics, the sooner people can instead focus on shit that might actually work.

If this was the case, they wouldn't be so desperate to keep us from owning firearms.

 

[Zachowon]

No one in the military that is sane thinks the military won't have a massive split or stay neutral.
Aka majority if the armednforce.s

 

[Bacle]

If this was the case, they wouldn't be so desperate to keep us from owning firearms.

The firearms thing isn't so much about preventing a revolutions, as it is to keep Karens happy, to try to make it easier for police to outgun any private individual because of Thin Blue Line votes, and because of bad faith arguments about school shootings.

DC isn't worried about firearms in the hands of civies to stop a revolutions/rebellion, its to keep the votes of the virulently anti-2A parts of the Left.