/AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.

I think the fear mongering of a civil war is just a means of making money, by driving paranoia and get customers that want their fill of anxiety and anger. Beyond random (right wing) terror attacks I can't imagine a future civil war ever happening. I'm from Germany by the way, so that's just my view as an outsider.

>>53
what >>54 said. Even if shooting began it would soon stop from military intervention and the fact that most Americans (including RWers) aren't trained soldiers. They would eventually grow tired and go home

The idea of a "new civil war" is just a part of the prepper grift. They need some kind of impending doom for people to fantasize about and burger civil war is a popular one because of the current political climate.

The first Civil War only happened due to conflicting interests between capitalists so I wager the same would be needed for a second one, and I just don't think the scenario is there. Idpol makes a lot of noise but I don't think porky cares.

>>891
>he isn’t a prepped
Ngmi

>>969
There's a difference between being a prepper and preparing for a disaster. The best way to prepare yourself for any disaster is by staying physically fit, learning basic survival skills (especially first aid), and having people you can rely on.
Prepping is a form of escapism that makes people buy useless gear and hoard food.

Probably this faggot will go and start it, hopefully this site gets shut down after he throws a tantrum
>>684668

>>53
>>890
There's several factors to consider here and I'll try to round it out with a conclusion.

1. Power Base
In order for a civil war to occur their must be two bases of power in the United States with conflicting interests. These centers of power must be able to via some means support arm and supply those capable of executing on violence. That's either through overt or covert means. In the US there's the obvious base of power of the USG in the Accella Corridor. However, there is rapidly developing a counter base in the deep South, Texas, and some of the plains states. These factions are however, disorganized and in many cases incongruous. It will be up to the "Patriots" (in reference to the radicals that started the War of Independence) to drive these factions towards pursuing more radical and militant goal either in tandem with one another or apart from one another. For the USG's part it will have to disrupt agitators by any means necessary so that this power base does not develop because once it does the Government's position will become precarious to say the least.

2. Access to the tools of violence and the will to use them. Right now, even now, with the economy being the way it is, Americans have the former but not the latter. The American people are still some of the most comfortable, and the most enviable people on the planet Earth. They have jobs, they have uses and they have for the most part a decent amount of spending money. Americans are not going to go to war over drag queen story hour. It may radicalize them, it may disgust them, but they will keep quiet at stick to their own, protecting their own, keeping with their own. They'll keep their heads down, and keep getting paid. The managerial state can wield any and all manner of indignity against the American people. So long as they remain too invested in their own possessions they will not be hostile to the state. We are very possibly heading toward an economic reality that will absolutely change that. If childless, prospect-less, unmarried young men some of them veterans are subjected to a major economic down turn in the next few years they are very likely to activate and gravitate to ANY dissident cause.

>>904
>The first Civil War only happened due to conflicting interests between capitalists so I wager the same would be needed for a second one, and I just don't think the scenario is there.
National petty bourgeoisie vs international (but US-based) haute bourgeoisie. Small business owners have lots of guns. There's already a large ideological/cultural/political(electoral) divide along these lines.

>>904
>>2100
That is a fantastic point which brings us to factor…

3. The last American Civil War happened as a result of a conflict between the bourgeoisie. These were the American elite of the time. Today the American elite really composes of super technocrats/techno-capitalists. If you watch the WEF or any other gathering of these various elites you'll know exactly the kind of people I'm talking about here. These are the kind of people who call the American government "USG." They all come from the university system, they all speak the same professional language, and These technocrats occupy pretty much every strata of the American system from the Mega-Corporations to the various departments and bureaus of the state. They are the reason that Black Rock has been called "the fourth branch of government" or that the media calls itself "the fifth estate." Much like how the French Revolution of 1789 and its avatar Napoleon was universally fought by European states of the early 19th century only for its tenants and reforms to be adopted gradually and universalized by the 20th, the Fascist regimes of mid-century Europe have left their mark on the managerial systems of the United States.

All of that being said there must be a fault line or a fissure between these elites and after 2016 we've seen them circle the wagons on pretty much every single major issue. As things heat up however, maybe some will get cold feet, others might realize that the system's going to start trimming the fat and turn on it. A lot of these can happen when the times get hard. This is when we may see the pool of dissident elites growing. I personally doubt many of them will be communist or socialist because the elite seems to consistently absorb this strata so we may see many more reactionary or neo-reactionary dissidents.

>>53
Rather than something similar to the first American Civil War with clearly defined lines, it'll probably be more like an increasingly widespread and lethal amount of instability and unrest, something more similar to the Irish Troubles. The country already saw an attempted coup last year, along with increasing numbers of mass shootings, general violence and other whatnot.

Does anyone think there might be some kind of armed intervention from anywhere else if it happens (NATO or LATAM for instance)?

>>2103
>Rather than something similar to the first American Civil War with clearly defined lines, it'll probably be more like an increasingly widespread and lethal amount of instability and unrest
A very good point to raise and something people often miss. I like contrasting this potential war to the Bosnian War. The main key difference would of course be the fact that in Bosnia, the national lines people seceded from (in hopes they could unify to their main homelands, as was the case for the Croats and Serbs in Bosnia) were very clearly defined. Why? Because all the Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks lived together in territories that had cultural cohesion in Bosnia. Bosnia in 1991 was already divided for war, the situation that preceded the fighting facilitated its start.

In the US this will be different. Yes there are such concepts as Black Belt and whatnot, but people nonetheless still live far less concentrated among ethnic/national lines than in Bosnia before the war. This will make it so this war would be even more lethal and brutal than Bosnia since the borders will be even less well defined, so the fighting to define those borders properly will be necessarily bloodier. We can expect many factions to pop up in this potential war; a group of many ethnicites that will seek to mantain territorial integrity (but likely will still be dominated by white centrists), black nationalists wanting to secede and form New Afrika or a new nation-state akin to that concept, white nationalists seeking their ethnostate, Latinos, people seeking to implement their long-held secesionist fantasies for their states such as California or Texas. It will be a fucking genocidal shitshow.

I really wonder who would the rest of the world support (if they decide to get involved). What would Canada or Mexico do? It's interesting to speculate.

One thing no one has mentioned is that lenin says a prerequisite to communist revolution is a divided bourgeoisie (along with general revolutionary sentiment in the people, and the obvious failure of petite-bourgeois solutions). If the elites are divided (they are very divided, though they could stand to be more divided rn. Currently finance+rentier+tech(+tax+insurance) capital is very dominant and commercial+industrial+petite-bourgeois interests are subservient, but as imperialism falters and the screws tighten on the productive sectors (the second group), they'll start trying hard to get out of the things stifling profitability: labor aristocracy and the "entitlement" around good standard of living, taxes, protection rackets in general like insurance, and they may even side with reactionary petite-bourgeoisie in pseudo-revolutionary talk attacking rentier capital which is also an unnecessary burden on development (could even go as far as land reform promises, but i doubt it). And some petite-bourgeois conservative socialists will side with the productive capital against finance capital, and some will side with finance and their fancy AI, but ultimately both are a distraction from the real truth: they are divided, and the more divided the more the time is ripe)–

ok long parentheses tangent interrupted that small sentence so i'll restate it: If the elites are divided, then what it means for us is that it's high time to organize the working people against both sides, in service of our interests. We don't need to lay down and wait for the bourgeoisie to fight it out. Mostly it doesn't matter and they dont want a big fight. They'll just be deadlocked and do stupid shit like they always do, like assassinations and election fraud at worst.

If there's gonna be a civil war, we gotta start it. And we start it when the bourgeois factions are at each others necks and out for blood. Not to play them against each other or give a fuck about their sides, but because they're weak. They fight a two front battle and we fight a one-front one.

>>2107
I think Canada would become the new hub of finance capital if anything happened to it in the US. All the elites would hide away in UK and NZ. "Canada" would prolly invade or start proxy shit to destroy whats left of the US (out of pettyness), but it would really be the old gov and elites (or the losing ones at least).

All out civil war is very unlikely to happen, but Gonzaloism or Years of Lead or low level spergouts planned by glowie Gladio could be possible.

>>2155
funny such a thing could b said? seems everyone is ready is ready cannibalize each tbh given an actual crisis

>>2410
don't get brainworms from the spectacle
People are mad, but a war needs sides. There aren't even geographic differences holding back development or anything. Most people aren't racist, much much fewer are racist enough to not only kill also live as actual soldiers in an ongoing war. What's left? What division is there to divide america? Look to the past as well btw - the superficial beef/split among the political superstructure is just between two different routes of class-collaborationist militaristic & repressive rule. They will be able to come together when the time comes (or be scared into submission), just like all historical transitions from democracy to fascism. The bourgeoisie puts up limp resistance. So this is not a source of real division. The only thing left is class.

How will a class civil war sustain itself? Only if there is a coherent class ideology to sustain both sides (or else it'll be one-sided terror). Well, we live inundated with bourgeois ideology. What's the component that's needed for civil war then? Proletarian ideology. What does this mean for a proletariat which is not yet in possession of a society in its making? It means an understanding of its current repression by the ruling class, as well as it's historical mission.

Right now, civil war means communism. Ergo, we're not ready for civil war (or else we're ready for revolutionary war - which we are not).

Since we're lacking the proletarian ideology, why not predict more of the same? More black snipers, more riots and crimewaves, more schizo right wing terrorists, maybe the return of anarchist+leftist propaganda of the deed, and a good helping of state terrorism and union busting. As well as street skirmishes, etc.

>>2439
Biden vs. Trump was a big split in American society and it wasn't even class based. Both were bourgeoisie and managed to rally riots/low level insurgency (BLM and George Floyd riots for Biden, MAGA and Capitol Hill storming for Trump.)

There will be another Trump and another Biden/Hillary Clinton. There will be another intra-bourgeoisie shitfight and that's the most likely thing to lead to civil war.

I live in a backwards colonials Frankenstein nation in the global south, every couple years there's an ethnic or Islamist rebellion and every time it gets crushes with in a week, cause our nation has a competent army
revolution often requires to have your enemy to have an internal issues that can be exploited in midst of a conflict, the US has done the same,

>>2624
Indonesia?

Is the stuff in picrel true? If so, it seems like a US civil war would get real messy and real bad

>>2749
>In a civil war scenario, we predicted that at least 10,000 people would die of starvation if the war was not finished in a year.
That is delusionally optimistic. At any given time, the average large US city has maybe a week or two worth of food supply. As soon as shipping logistics becomes a contested factor you would see millions starving within weeks as local warlords start hoarding food and shooting beggars.

>>2749
it mostly reads like a power fantasy about how chinlets think things will go in their wildest dreams, their figures on how much of the military would defect or act are a complete asspull. The officer corps of the whole show are educated liberals who are disgusted by weeping qanon freaks.


Cities control major ports, rivers and bays, rail depots, many things that are needed for the rural chinlets to live their fat and happy lives that they think makes them rugged. There are less chinlets and no matter how many guns they stockpile they can only hold one gun each and most have never been in a fire fight same as anyone. This idea that they will be self sufficient ass kicking rockstars beating up the effete city dwellers doesn't hold water when they lack power too and producing food becomes a full time job for a lot of people when there's no gas, so their advantage of being in farmland and having trucks will dissapate very quickly while the actual centers of the economy bring in supplies and provisions from their control of coastal access.

They are viewing the next civil war exactly how the confederates did before they got conquered and subjugated by urban troops who ended up being able to fight just as hard or harder.

>>2624
Literally no one listens to Trotsky and takes over the key infrastructure. Literally just need 20 guys at the power and water plants in every city. Why would you storm the capital?

>>2753
ong I was reading the part about coastal ports and realized assuming we accept the whole other countries get involved shit why tf wouldnt the Accella corridor just become an EU/Anglosphere proxy and China get a west coast proxy?

I feel like you'd end up with each coast becoming some wierd rump state but not a terrible place to live in and the interior either being a complete syria tier clusterfuck or just an actual christofascist backwater. me personally I wouldn't mind living in a chinese proxy state in california

I haven't seen anyone bring this up yet, but what happens to Uncle Sam's nuclear arsenal if an actual civil war kicks off?

>>2103
>>2107
>>2109


I don't know where I read it but I recall coming across a document that was outlining a possible operation by Canada to support the US in any sort of aid to civil power and vice versa. What Canada or Mexico could provide however is incredibly minuscule because I would assume both countries would be focused on securing their insanely long borders. Canada specifically would have to deal with a mass amount of refugees at its borders.

>>2749

75% desertion rate? That is way too generous. I can tell this poster is some knucklehead who is overestimating grunt talk as being some sort of measure for action.

Also why do these people assume "oh yeah they're camping all the time theyll definitely win in a civil war"? As if local forces also don't have knowledge of land, intelligence, and strategy?

Russia can barely support a war in Ukraine, they can't do much in an American operation outside of sending a few emissaries and spies. How would they get supplies in and from where? That being said…

>>2804

The likely scenario of any nuclear power going into collapse would be that other powers would collaborate to secure the sites. I am thinking Russia would have a strong interest in this as well as France, UK, and others willing to build a coalition to secure these sites with whatever faction is least likely to be insane about it.

The problem is most of this arsenal isn't just plug in and play. There's a process to be used in deploying them and I would think that a government in collapse would be immediately focused on securing, dismantling, or relocating these weapons elsewhere. I don't think nuclear weapons would be as big of a threat as chemical or biological weapons would be.

>>2100
Yankees vs 'Cowboys' seems more likely: northeastern effete corpos vs southwestern techie oilmen.
>>2107
People are moving to the sun belt because that's where all of the jobs are.
>>2107
The Italian Years of Lead is a much better example imo.
>>2749
The point about the Texas grid hasn't aged well.