• BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    They’re idiots if they think that any sort of civil war would be broken up like that. It’d be the interior states versus the coastal states essentially. The coastal states could just cut off all outside shipments to the interior and watch them just decay.

    And there wouldn’t be an all out war because the ideologies at contention here aren’t readily segregated to one area of the country or the other in a stronger fashion. We’re highly mixed in a lot of areas. What would happen is lots of civil unrest and let’s be honest here, right wing perpetuated violence.

    • MartianRecon@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 days ago

      This.

      They also think they’d be the ‘majority’ in this fight. And sure, they’d have a lot of land. But people… Money? No.

      When Biden won, something like over 80% of the GDP broke for the Democrats.

      Good luck funding a war with 20% of the money they country makes. There’s counties in California that make that much probably.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 days ago

        I was going to say “this is yet another one of those ‘land doesn’t vote’ maps”.

        They dumped a lot of conservative states like Utah, Wyoming, and Montana into group 1, but group 1 has California. That’s where the people are.

        • MartianRecon@lemmus.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          California has like 1 in 8 of all Americans, and we’re the single richest states. The south is still pretty much the same place it was after their last attempt at this war.

    • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Problem: interior statesia has shipping via the great lakes/Ohio River and the Mississippi River. And that big ol coastline in the gulf of motherfucking Mexico. It’s easier to blockade them, but they’re not landlocked

      • rbos@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 days ago

        It’s hard to imagine us (Canada) allying with that faction. The St. Lawrence seaway would not be neutral, i expect.

        • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 days ago

          Yeah and there is also the erie canal. Or there was. I dunno I don’t live there. But that seems like a great place to fall victim to ferry pirates

      • TargaryenTKE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 days ago

        You’re right about the interior not being completely landlocked, but the Mississippi isn’t as navigable as you might think. The vast majority of cargo ships (pretty much anything designed for the open ocean) isn’t going to make it further north than Baton Rogue because the river is far too shallow. Baton Rogue is a fine city (New Orleans too), but they simply don’t have the infrastructure to support multiple states in the middle of a war, not to mention the blockade that WOULD exist. This was even a problem both sides had to deal with during the Civil War; it’s not a new development, and its not something that can be fixed without an enormous amount of money and manpower. Plus there are LOADS of hairpin turns, narrow passageways, and other complications that make operating multiple barges in any one location a nautical traffic jam exceeded only by the Evergreen/Suez fiasco.

        The Great Lakes have some of the same issues, but like others have already pointed out, it’s highly unlikely that Canada would just sit back and let multiple feuding parties pass by their major population centers without SOME form of intervention. Idk, they’re definitely a wild card, but this argument is entirely dependent on whose side Michigan (specifically Detroit) would choose. If they choose to support the ‘exterior states’ then there goes your best northern interior port just like that.

        Lastly, all of this is ignoring that we have aircraft and carriers now, rendering most of these considerations pointless. Even if the military itself chooses to stay out of it for whatever reason (unlikely), the existence of airpower is sure to make any future American Civil War 2 a lot more complicated, even if it’s just random dudes in Cessnas dropping pipe bombs or whatever else

    • Soggy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      I doubt Texas would go along with the rest of the South for long anyway. Ignoring the left lean of the big cities, Texans have a particular attachment to the idea of independence and given the opportunity would likely throw their weight around. (They are, after all, the land that seceded from two countries in order to keep their slaves)

      If the country fractures I think it would be into ~7 pieces.