Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Half of Americans anticipate a U.S. civil war soon

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 445 posts

Re: Half of Americans anticipate a U.S. civil war soon

#371

Post by fatherzine »

lazide wrote: post #334
fatherzine wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if this perspective is colored by the American Civil War experience. Run-of-the-mill civil war has nothing to do with traditional military objectives. Rather, it is a messy business where various factions viciously fight over turf, often times eliminating populations with (perceived) allegiances to other faction(s) from the territory they control. See Lebanon, Yugoslavia, ISIS, etc.

My perspective is more based on what faction would fight over someone else’s turf here? No one seems interested, in a physical space way, at least so far. Would the feds fight Texas over texas? Doesn’t seem like it. Would texas go to the Feds, or New York, or whatever, to fight to take it? Doesn’t seem like it. Seems more like everyone wants to lob angry messages at each other from over the border.

The classics: ethnic rifts, religious rifts, ideological rifts. A good old fashioned economic shock is all it takes.

Re: Half of Americans anticipate a U.S. civil war soon

#372

Post by AnnikaL »

frob wrote: post #216
ako wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like what? And was it really that different in the past? Often it feels like people don’t have a good historic perspective and think the past didn’t have its difficulties. In reality, there’s probably no year in the past where most of us would have been better off than today. Doesn’t mean that today is perfect, lots of problems to address: housing, income, healthcare, global warming, destruction of the ecosystem, lis…

In the past month, women in large swaths of the United States have lost their right to bodily autonomy, health, and even life. A woman in Wisconsin was forced to carry her dead fetus inside her for ten days because the hospital was afraid to perform an abortion to remove the fetal tissue due to the law from 1849 being unclear about when exceptions are allowed to its complete and total ban even in the case of rape and…

While I agree that harsh restrictions on reproductive healthcare are very bad policy in part for the reasons you mention, pointing this out doesn't seem like a very effective counter-argument to the idea that things are better today than in the past. Prior to the Roe v. Wade decision, which came just 60 years ago, abortion was illegal in all circumstances in all states. Cancer survival rates have significantly increased thanks to advances in medical treatment.

There are certainly issues currently, and the state laws against abortion are part of that, but I think the 21st century is overall better than past time periods.

Re: Half of Americans anticipate a U.S. civil war soon

#373

Post by lazide »

chasd00 wrote: post #344
lazide wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It probably doesn't help? That said, in the '70s it was probably 80%+ I don't see an ACTUAL (declared) civil war happening. None of the participants actually could I think, nor would they benefit from taking anything. Would Texas try to actually take Washington DC? Nah. Could they? No chance. Would the Feds do anything but setup sanctions/blockades and wait for Texas to beg to come back if they tried to leave? Nah. T…

> Simmering 'fuck yous' and 'civil disobedience' I see building though, with the occasional unhinged terrorist this has been happening since i've been old enough to remember though. "unhinged terrorist" = unibomber, the OK city bombings, the list goes on. Fuck yous and civil disobedience are basically constant with some ebs and flows around election time and current events.

Yup, frequency will increase is all.

Re: Half of Americans anticipate a U.S. civil war soon

#375

Post by [deleted] »

kkielhofner wrote: post #183

One of my very close friends is a retired Army Special Forces (Green Berets) veteran with a total of 11 combat tours. He's seen (read that as you will) a couple of actual civil wars. He was once at a very right-leaning event and someone suggested we need a civil war. He's very right leaning himself but he immediately shut them down essentially saying they have no idea what they're wishing for or even talking about. N…

[deleted]

Re: Half of Americans anticipate a U.S. civil war soon

#376

Post by Supermancho »

chasd00 wrote: post #133
hinkley wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hasn't 60% of the population of Texas expected a civil war soon for the last 100 years? And what are those rebel flags all about? It's posturing. Just like all of those surveys that say 50% of tech workers anticipate quitting this year. Nearly all the places that talk about secession are the same states that generate less federal tax revenue than they spend. Which is both why it would be a terrible idea, and why peop…

the whole secession thing blows me away. I live in Texas and had a couple friends who were on that bandwagon. I asked them had they thought about going toe to toe with the US Marines while bombers are over Austin and drones over everywhere else. All i got back was silence. The union will be preserved at any cost, there's precedent for that. No state will secede without defeating the US military first.

While I think the idea of secession is ludicrous (who would give up the free services that the Federal govt hands over, especially after it gives the state oversight?), the idea that Bombers and drones and soldiers stave off a secession is pathetic.

You can't aim a gun at someone to changing their beliefs, much less kill your way toward that goal. What you will do is create more and more costly asynchronous warfare, as we have seen with people in other nations that our military has tried to subdue (ie Hearts and Minds). Modern communication has created and maintained rebel organizations over great distances with little investment and minimal effort. What's worse is modern warfare usually empowers the targets of that military effort. eg Running some tanks over to Texas is basically agreeing to destroy those tanks when they are inevitably captured or left behind, because it's too vulnerable and expensive to bring them back from the front lines (which would be everywhere), as the Russians have learned.

Re: Half of Americans anticipate a U.S. civil war soon

#378

Post by jrs235 »

chasd00 wrote: post #133
hinkley wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hasn't 60% of the population of Texas expected a civil war soon for the last 100 years? And what are those rebel flags all about? It's posturing. Just like all of those surveys that say 50% of tech workers anticipate quitting this year. Nearly all the places that talk about secession are the same states that generate less federal tax revenue than they spend. Which is both why it would be a terrible idea, and why peop…

the whole secession thing blows me away. I live in Texas and had a couple friends who were on that bandwagon. I asked them had they thought about going toe to toe with the US Marines while bombers are over Austin and drones over everywhere else. All i got back was silence. The union will be preserved at any cost, there's precedent for that. No state will secede without defeating the US military first.

Prior to the 17th amendment, the way to "dissolve", neuter, or do away with the Union was for state legislatures to stop electing Senators. Once enough states stopped electing and sending Senators then a quorum would cease to exist and nothing (lack of bills and budgets) would get done grinding everything to a halt...

Re: Half of Americans anticipate a U.S. civil war soon

#379

Post by shkkmo »

nequo wrote: post #70
shkkmo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And between where? Every state has strong red and blue regions. A second "civil war" is more likely to be terrorist campaigns like the IRA conducted rather than a war like the one the that northern states fought against southern states a century and a half ago.

It would be a civil war as long as there is a part of the country that's controlled by one side and another part that is controlled by the other side. Doesn't have to align with current state borders.

It doesn't have to align with state borders, but a lack of alignment with state borders make the organizational start of a civil war complicated because it can't utilize any existing governmental structures. Thus the conflict is much less likely to be one between armies, but between vigilante terrorist groups.

Re: Half of Americans anticipate a U.S. civil war soon

#380

Post by weaksauce »

hinkley wrote: post #173
antonymy wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the USA was once a true federation of sovereign states that really hasn't been the case since at least the Civil War, over 150 years ago. States depend heavily on the federal government for assistance, standardization, and regulation, and even depend on their neighbors for logistical support in various industries as well as energy and water. For all its touted net-contribution to the federal budget California w…

I haven't heard much talk of Californians dreaming of becoming independent, but maybe I'm traveling in the wrong circles. What I have heard is people talking smack about kicking California out, and taking 10% of the US GDP with it. Which would be dumb for the rest of us.

california has the 6th largest gdp in the world... ahead of every country save 5(that's including the US). California is a juggernaut and just saying that it would be taking 10% of the US GDP is underselling it.
Post reply on HN