Role of the military in a Civil War?

[08Dawg]

The fact that we're even having this conversation and that this thread has gotten to three pages a) frankly terrifies me and b) really makes me shake my head about the sad state of affairs we've gotten into lately. 

[Lawman]

I got asked by my teenage daughter my thoughts on the massive flow of refugees from the Middle East.  I explained that should trouble arise, we might make a similar journey.  But at some point, when the guns had faded from earshot, and I could calculate a certain level of safety for my loved ones, that we would part ways.  That is the difference between our culture, and others that have been ground into an apathetic flight response.

I agree I just don't think we will have the capability or in a lot of ways the focus to operate as a National Military.

I think what you are more likely to see is some sort of marriage of small units and regionally defined commands so that we function as more a modern version of the colonial militias of old. Something like a basic formation of regional government combined with a military functioning on the idea of a police/stability role. That's gonna eat all or most of the combat power leaving any kind of "North vs South" function woefully under supported.

If anything something like this might be what leads to a reset of States Rights. Without an outside threat of say a China or Russia rolling in to conquer the fractured whole I doubt any regional group would want to spend precious resources to try and unify and support areas around the country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

5 hours ago, 08Dawg said:

The fact that we're even having this conversation and that this thread has gotten to three pages a) frankly terrifies me and b) really makes me shake my head about the sad state of affairs we've gotten into lately. 

Just the end of an arc, the naive dreams of baby boomers and the shitty leaders they have turned out to be is causing the discussion of what comes next, if comes to that.  Hopefully not, I feel obliged to say that, but it might.  I would rather see American Democracy prove more durable/reliable/responsive than the people currently running it.

The original Colonies had a system of governance that worked and was satisfactory for the majority of its existence up until that point that it wasn't good enough anymore, things can change quickly and in unpleasant fashion when just the right conditions coincide, even with the trappings and comforts of modern life, people will only put up with so much.

5 hours ago, Lawman said:

I agree I just don't think we will have the capability or in a lot of ways the focus to operate as a National Military.

I think what you are more likely to see is some sort of marriage of small units and regionally defined commands so that we function as more a modern version of the colonial militias of old. Something like a basic formation of regional government combined with a military functioning on the idea of a police/stability role. That's gonna eat all or most of the combat power leaving any kind of "North vs South" function woefully under supported.

If anything something like this might be what leads to a reset of States Rights. Without an outside threat of say a China or Russia rolling in to conquer the fractured whole I doubt any regional group would want to spend precious resources to try and unify and support areas around the country.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Ditto - for the Guard (Air and Army) if we really, really got concerned with breakdown in authority, building a military around the operational concept of dispersed basing (particularly for Aviation units) could be effective preparation if you really considered it possible (my WAG on that for the US is 1 chance in 10).

If you're not physically, logistically and operationally tied to prepared bases and could legitimately operate from ad hoc bases set up on roads, parking lots, fields, etc.. you can survive when the lights and phones don't work anymore.

Dispersing is a defensive strategy but just being able to operate could be the advantage, still has a big logistics tail but still impressive.

[08Dawg]

On 9/6/2016 at 7:19 AM, gearpig said:

I honestly don't believe, as a whole, we are as in poor shape as some might think. Below is a map I found interesting. Allegedly, it shows where 50% of the US population resides. Lots of conclusions to be drawn...

Like stay the hell out of Southern California...

[Lawman]

Like stay the hell out of Southern California...

They'll die off in the first few weeks. Without a lot of gas saved for this exact reason you won't get out of the region of the US where you need water, food , and arguably AC available just to survive.

What's left down there will consume it's self for survival.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

On September 8, 2016 at 10:42 PM, 08Dawg said:

Like stay the hell out of Southern California...

 

On September 8, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Lawman said:

They'll die off in the first few weeks. Without a lot of gas saved for this exact reason you won't get out of the region of the US where you need water, food , and arguably AC available just to survive.

What's left down there will consume it's self for survival.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Recommend watching "Collapse" featuring the late Michael Ruppert.  

Rupoert had an interesting life, obviously was very intelligent and somewhat disturbed that ultimately led him to take his life and prior to that have some hospitalization for mental health.  All that said, his thoughts on how & why an advanced economy could crash and the preparation of individuals or smaller, viable sections of the larger unsustainable whole were interesting.

 

Edited September 11, 2016 by Clark Griswold