NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's face it, there's gonna be one eventually. Who do you think will be the winner?


Conservatives tend to be better armed and more numerous, but not as youthful. Or educated. They have more people on their side with military experience, which is an asset, and also more effective paramilitary groups (think Oklahoma City bombers)

Liberals live in cities, thus controlling the distribution of supplies throughout the US. They also seem to me to be more passionate, which will probably translate into more murderous and effective killing machines. Plus they are younger. Though their problem is that they have pacifists in their midst, something Conservatives don't need to worry about as much.

Who will get to Memocide the other side? Who do you want to win this war? Also, do you want to be recruited to join the fight against the Fascist/Commie scum?

Your saying that conservatives tend to be poorly educated offended me greatly.

BOT: Conservatives. Yes.

I think the question should be:
What political party is more likely to get a country involved in a civil war?

In that case, my vote goes for any conservative party.

Liberals and their representative political parties dont advertise their strong point to be winning a war, because it is their beliefs to avoid a war at all costs in the first place.
Only barbaric rock heads consider the ability to "win" a war to be a strong point in their political objectives.

I think the question should be:
What political party is more likely to get a country involved in a civil war?

In that case, my vote goes for any conservative party.

Liberals and their representative political parties dont advertise their strong point to be winning a war, because it is their beliefs to avoid a war at all costs in the first place.
Only barbaric rock heads consider the ability to "win" a war to be a strong point in their political objectives.



I'm not thinking of party, I'm just considering, after each group can't stand the other any more and the urges to simply wipe the other out start to emerge, who will win the ensuing war?

Your saying that conservatives tend to be poorly educated offended me greatly.

BOT: Conservatives. Yes.


I didn't say poorly educated (although the quality of education in Red States due to their lower budgets does make this a reality) I just said less educated. People with higher education levels tend to vote a bit more liberally.

Really depends on the nominal cause of the war. A large factor, most likly the deciding factor, will be the position of the government and the army. If conservatives try to disestablish the federal government then most likely the liberals will win, if the liberals decide to try to overthrow the government, then most likley the conservatives will win. Without knowing what the war is obstensibly about there is no way to judge.

Well...when it comes down to it, it all depends on how the Armed Forces are split up.

I think it would be safe to assume that, while there would certainly be a split in the Armed Forces as well, there is a substantial difference in who would be where. The majority of Naval bases are in large cities (liberal), while most Air Force and Army bases are located in rural areas (conservative). This doesn't mean that all of the Army goes with the conservatives and the whole Navy goes with the liberals, but it does give a better idea of who has what to work with.

I honestly have to say that, while the conservatives will have the advantage in military tech and total amount of weaponry for citizen militias, it's going to be impossible for them to beat the liberals. The liberals can hole up in their large cities, which, as we all know, are the worst places for any force to try and attack. The conservatives could concievably just bomb the cities out of existence, but that would be self-defeating, since it elminates the vast majority of the industrial base, eliminating the U.S.'s role as a world-industrial power, and greatly weakening the country to outside invasion once the civil war is over.

So the conservatives have two choices. They can surround the cities Fallujah style and try to starve out the defenders. This is unlikely to work, since food can be smuggled in, and the amount of food in the city itself could sustain even a large force for a considerable period of time.

The second choice is to go in. All out urban warfare. It would likely be the bloodiest conflict in history in terms of a total casualties : total number of soldiers ratio in history. The conservatives might concievably even win in a city or two, but to concentrate and win one city at a time leaves their own logistical lines exposed, and to try to do it all at once spreads them too thin.

The liberals have no easier time of it, because even if they stave off the conservatives in the cities, they still have to take on an enemy in land much more open and vast, and they have more military bases to capture.

It's a draw no matter how you look at it...with immense casualties on both sides.

There would be no point...

I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here.

'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.'

'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.'

'Hey, wait a minute. There's one guy holding up both puppets!'

Shut up! Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control…By the way; keep drinking beer, you fucking morons.

-bill hicks

It really all depends on how you define "Liberal" and "Conservative."

Do you mean Social convervatives or fiscal ones? Neocons, for example, are very fiscally liberal, but they're also socially conservative. I'm a libertarian, so I'm likely to side with anyone who's fiscally conservative and socially liberal, and there aren't many of us. I see myself as belonging to a wildcard faction which is liable to cause damage to either side, but I don't really endorse either fully. Regardless, I shun the idea of harming another human being unless they harm me first, and joining some manner of army is just begging for this to happen. I'd rather go vigilante.

I'd stay in my goddamn house and shoot any bastard who had ideas about coming into it without my consent. Beyond that, I don't give a shit who wins.

---note this may be unresponsive as the forums seemed to not want me to post----

Rather blaise and superficial analysis.

Location of bases has little to do with the political leanings of the actual servive members, the Air Force is most likely to favor the liberals and nearly all thier bases are in rural "conservative" areas while the US Navy (especially the shipboard portion) is pretty heftily packed with conservatives, despite the location of Navy bases. But for the majority of the servicemen thier own conservative/liberal leanings are not going to be the deciding factor in which side to support, they will support the established government regardless of whether it sides conservative or liberal.

Rural/Urban is not a good divide either, since large rural sections of the country are quite liberal and there are large conservative populations in most major cities. But how each of these sectionss aligns itself depends on the nature of causus belli, but even that is I think not the deciding factor. Unless there is some way of constructing a government for both sides with equialentlegitimacy or the established government somehow ceases to exist, the most likely deciding factor will be the position of the established government. A civil war against the established government could occur which would defeat the government, but it would not be along conservative/liberal lines.

AS for education and alignment conservative/liberal, in the US liberals draw more support from those with the least formal education (ie 2/3rds of those without HS degrees are liberals) and the highest formal education than conservatives do. Make of that what you what you will, but it mostly ballances out with both sides being equally well educated - conservatives predominate among those who went to college but didn't get advanced degrees while liberals predominate among the extremes. I doubt, however, that a lack of Doctoral canidates amongst the conservative side is going to be a ssignificant factor.

Nor are urban areas in the US as signifcant as they once were or as they still are in many countries. The US currently has such a dispersed and redundant manufactuing and transportation structure that the urban rural divide is irrelevant - factories are as likely to be in the middle of nowhere as in cities and the number of air terminals and road lines makes actually controig transportation through stongpoints just about impossible. The only really siginficant chokepoints in US transportation are naval, the deep ports for container ships and the St Lauence Seaway, but there are deep ports in both conservative and liberal areas of the country and the seaway is likely to be closable by either side in an equivalent war, as would the rivers.

If however the nation were to divide into a Urban/Rural conflict (as opposed to coservative/liberal) the most likely result would be the loss by the cities in short order, the primary advantage cities used to have in this sort of conflict (a majority of the manufacturing capability) no longer exists in the US, they would be surrounded and bypassed with the possible exceptions of Corpus Christi and Long Beach and even those are doubtful since goods could also be exported/imported through Vancouver and Metamoros (also questionable which side of the conflict those areas would belong to anyway). I'm not saying it wouldn't hurt the rural faction to lose the ports and transportation, but they are not esential to maintaining the Rural faction. But this is all about a rural-urban division, not a conservative-liberal one.

Neither side will win if someone is crazy enough to use nukes.

But they won't win either way, because I will win :D

Neither side will win if someone is crazy enough to use nukes.

But they won't win either way, because I will win :D

If it's a civil war, the war will be fought by civilians. Neither side would have nukes.

If it's a civil war, the war will be fought by civilians. Neither side would have nukes.
What about a "civil" war inside the nation's military? what's that called?

What about a "civil" war inside the nation's military? what's that called?

A civil war almost always involves the military. In fact, the most common type of civil war begins with rebel military generals and their followers.

A civil war almost always involves the military. In fact, the most common type of civil war begins with rebel military generals and their followers.
That's what I thought. So, there's always at least some possibility that one of these guys may go off the deep end and push that little red doomsday button, right?

That's what I thought. So, there's always at least some possibility that one of these guys may go off the deep end and push that little red doomsday button, right?

No. why would you be interested in nuking your own country? The idea of a civil war is to take control of your country away from the people in power. Why would you want control of a blackened radiated dump? No one would do that to their own country.

No. why would you be interested in nuking your own country? The idea of a civil war is to take control of your country away from the people in power. Why would you want control of a blackened radiated dump? No one would do that to their own country.
I see. That's good to know, though. :)

No. why would you be interested in nuking your own country? The idea of a civil war is to take control of your country away from the people in power. Why would you want control of a blackened radiated dump? No one would do that to their own country.

...You're thinking rationally.

In a thread about possible civil war between political idealogies in the US. If people are willing to kill each other in massive numbers over welfare and tax assesments for the wealthy, rational thought has long since departed. At that point, put on your cowboy hat and ride that bomb all the way down.

No. why would you be interested in nuking your own country? The idea of a civil war is to take control of your country away from the people in power. Why would you want control of a blackened radiated dump? No one would do that to their own country.

Of course I would nuke my own country if I was on the losing side. If I'm going to lose and die, then I'm going to nuke the world and bring it down with me.

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

About the civil war, it would be a close battle. Unless Arnold Schwarzenegger leads the conservatives, then the conservatives would win.

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

More conservatives have military experience.
More conservatives already have many firearms, especially rifles.
Most of the areas outside of the major urban centers are primarily conservative. It would be a siege of the major cities - we might just do what they did in Escape From New York, and put walls around them.

Wait, do we mean a civil war, as in an uprising against the government, or civilians against civilians?

If it's civs against civs, the gov will probably try to put down the insurrections, fail, and then hang out in Canada until the war's over.

More conservatives have military experience.
More conservatives already have many firearms, especially rifles.
Most of the areas outside of the major urban centers are primarily conservative. It would be a siege of the major cities - we might just do what they did in Escape From New York, and put walls around them.

If we're talking purely civilian, liberals are better educated, they would have better tactics.

Remember, wars are not fought with men, they are fought with minds.

their problem is that they have pacifists in their midst

I don't see that as a problem as such. It improves planning and precision. When your actions are aimed at minimizing damage rather than exterminating everyone opposing you, you tend to work better.

Also, it improves your public image. There are other forces beside Liberals and Conservatives, not just outside the US, and when these get involved it can make a significant difference how the media talk about you.

If we're talking purely civilian, liberals are better educated, they would have better tactics.

Remember, wars are not fought with men, they are fought with minds.

This war, in the advent of international communication, would definitely be fought with minds far more than with men. The fact that here in Europe, I can know within minutes when something significant happens across the Atlantic, does have to count for something, doesn't it?

As a total outsider, i think it is impossible to say who would win. You can look at other countries histories, when civil wars occurred due to political divergence, and you don't have a trend of who would win.. with so many variables, only if you actually fought one, could we know.

If we're talking purely civilian, liberals are better educated, they would have better tactics.

Remember, wars are not fought with men, they are fought with minds.

Probably not. Yes, they are fought with minds, but they are fought with experienced minds. Few officers are liberals.

The liberals are bound to win almost any war, because a liberal would consider almost any peace as a victory, whereas the only true victory for a conservative is annihilation or subjugation of all views that oppose conservatism.

This war, in the advent of international communication, would definitely be fought with minds far more than with men. The fact that here in Europe, I can know within minutes when something significant happens across the Atlantic, does have to count for something, doesn't it?

Hey, you're from Aachen. My favourite 2nd league team is there...

Pfft. Saying that liberals will win because they're smarter is like saying that Elvis or the Who will win a Grammy because they make better music. Sure it makes sense on a rational level, but Elvis didnt win a Grammy until he came out with a god damned Gospel album, and the Who never won one at all. Sure, if you predicate your aguments based on this logic alone you can make your case, but you can say that about pretty much anything.

I'll be the first to admit that intellectual left-wingers are easier to find than intellectual right-wingers, but that doesn't mean that their idoelogy is any less valid. It also doesn't mean that they will by default have an inferior grasp of tactics and strategy.

Libertarians, definitely.

It depends entirely upon whether or not foregin countries would enter the war. If they do, the liberals would win. However, if they don't the conservatives will win because they will whip up the religous right in to a holy war frenzy and cut them loose on the liberals and that would be the end of the left.

It also doesn't mean that they will by default have an inferior grasp of tactics and strategy.

I could say that on the basis of prior experience, that liberals would by default have an inferior grasp of tactics and strategy.

Most people with combat experience in the US are not liberals. There's a much larger pool of talent for conservatives to draw on.

I could say that on the basis of prior experience, that liberals would by default have an inferior grasp of tactics and strategy.

Most people with combat experience in the US are not liberals. There's a much larger pool of talent for conservatives to draw on.

Civil war. CIVILIANS. Most civilians, even those with military experience, don't become generals. Civilians who do have the intelligence to lead an army without milit exp will most likely be liberal.

Civil war. CIVILIANS. Most civilians, even those with military experience, don't become generals. Civilians who do have the intelligence to lead an army without milit exp will most likely be liberal.
The US has far, far more people with military experience outside of the military, living as civilians, than they do in the military.

Civilians. Like me.

The US has far, far more people with military experience outside of the military, living as civilians, than they do in the military.

Civilians. Like me.

So you believe you could turn 10 to 1 odds in your favour?

So you believe you could turn 10 to 1 odds in your favour?

You're saying that there are 10 liberals for every 1 conservative?

So you believe you could turn 10 to 1 odds in your favour?

I could, with a careful choice of where to fight. Where to fight counts for a lot.

conservatives would win. We have all of the creepy red necks, and the NRA. Sure we may not be as young but the liberals have to worry about the pussys who try to act anti war.

I could, with a careful choice of where to fight. Where to fight counts for a lot.

It also depends on who I'm fighting, how they are armed, etc.

I have the same weapon I had when I was in the Army. Unless you have an armored vehicle, if I pick the time and place for fighting, you could bring 40 people and it wouldn't be fair for the 40.

China will win. They're just going to watch how the capitalists annihilate themselves... then I'll become new president and take over all of Asia... and then the world...

... and then I woke up...

I could, with a careful choice of where to fight. Where to fight counts for a lot.

In war, you don't choose where to fight. Armies just meet. You can affect the exact place of battle through manipulation, but you can't just call up and say "So, 3 o'clock, old city? Fine."

In war, you don't choose where to fight. Armies just meet. You can affect the exact place of battle through manipulation, but you can't just call up and say "So, 3 o'clock, old city? Fine."

I didn't have too much trouble picking the time and place when I was in combat.

As much as people seem to think another civil war in the United States would be a great thing, it is never going to happen. If you look at it from a world perspective is there realy uch difference between liberal and concervative in this contry? They are both concervative central on the overall chain of political views.

I could only hope that in the event that the fanatical extremists on the far ends of both the right and left went to war with each other, that they would cause the extinction of each other. Leaving behind a more moderate, tolerant and respectful society and a good lesson for those left to carry on. :headbang:

I think very few people would consider a civil war in the states to be a great thing other than enemies of the US, Europeans for example. . .heh heh, that'll get'em riled up.
Liberals win a civil war in the states? Liberals? The crowd that is pretty much scared o' firearms and enamored of the "cycle of violence" idea? You must be kidding.
Hell, this thread ain't nothing more than another conservative/liberal pissing contest and since liberals outnumber conservatives on these boards guess whose gonna out vote who.

I didn't have too much trouble picking the time and place when I was in combat.

What the hell kind of army were you in?

What the hell kind of army were you in?

US Army. If you have great intel on where they are, and they have no intel on where you are, you can be wherever you want to be, when you want to be there, and they can't do anything about it.

The liberals are bound to win almost any war, because a liberal would consider almost any peace as a victory, whereas the only true victory for a conservative is annihilation or subjugation of all views that oppose conservatism.


I wish more of the liberals I know didn't apparently think they're conservative, then.

The concept of a civil war in the United States in the next 75 years is utterly and completely retarded. First off, while liberals and conservatives have disagreements, they still, by and large, get along with each other. Of the people I play Halo and Starcraft with there are two Bush voters and two Kerry voters. We're friends. There are millions of people out there just like us. And for a civil war to be even remotely possible, the sides would have to completely dehumanize (read: destroy the friendships) all these people. There's far more to life than just politics.

I'd also take issue with the liberals being better educated. They are in some instances, but not all. I believe I remember the demographic spread of education levels in 2004, and it had the majority of those with post-graduate degrees and high school dropouts voting Kerry, whilst those with high-school diplomas and undergrad degrees broke Bush. Just me griping though.

I'd also take issue with the liberals being better educated. They are in some instances, but not all. I believe I remember the demographic spread of education levels in 2004, and it had the majority of those with post-graduate degrees and high school dropouts voting Kerry, whilst those with high-school diplomas and undergrad degrees broke Bush. Just me griping though.

It makes certain individuals feel better to think they are smarter than the rest. And we all know that self esteem is more important than reality, right?

Also, using the silly biases of this thread, the 'conservatives' would win. More firepower (gun ownership), control of the food supply (rural), and more military experience.

And we all know that self esteem is more important than reality, right?

Well, for most liberals, self-esteem is important up until the point where you have to defend yourself. Then it's not worth anything at all, and in fact, can be said not to exist, since it is immoral to defend yourself.

The concept of a civil war in the United States in the next 75 years is utterly and completely retarded. First off, while liberals and conservatives have disagreements, they still, by and large, get along with each other. Of the people I play Halo and Starcraft with there are two Bush voters and two Kerry voters. We're friends. There are millions of people out there just like us. And for a civil war to be even remotely possible, the sides would have to completely dehumanize (read: destroy the friendships) all these people. There's far more to life than just politics.

I'd also take issue with the liberals being better educated. They are in some instances, but not all. I believe I remember the demographic spread of education levels in 2004, and it had the majority of those with post-graduate degrees and high school dropouts voting Kerry, whilst those with high-school diplomas and undergrad degrees broke Bush. Just me griping though.

I have some very liberal friends also, we have interesting discussions. We are reasonable and friendly with one another. Politics is not important enough to base friendship/like and dislike upon.

Well, for most liberals, self-esteem is important up until the point where you have to defend yourself. Then it's not worth anything at all, and in fact, can be said not to exist, since it is immoral to defend yourself.

If that's true, then the 'liberals' would lose automatically since they wouldn't defend themselves and just do the SNiVeL.

If that's true, then the 'liberals' would lose automatically since they wouldn't defend themselves and just do the SNiVeL.

Some would. The majority would run. A few would want to talk their way out of it.

Some would. The majority would run. A few would want to talk their way out of it.

That would work for and against them. The ''runners" would just cause those redneck hunting instincts to kick in and start a chase while the 'talkers' could confuse those uneducated hicks into inaction w/ all thier fancy words.

The concept of a civil war in the United States in the next 75 years is utterly and completely retarded. First off, while liberals and conservatives have disagreements, they still, by and large, get along with each other. Of the people I play Halo and Starcraft with there are two Bush voters and two Kerry voters. We're friends. There are millions of people out there just like us. And for a civil war to be even remotely possible, the sides would have to completely dehumanize (read: destroy the friendships) all these people. There's far more to life than just politics.

Hear hear.

Two of my best friends in the world are a couple of guys I met in college who were already good friends with each other when I met them. One of them, with whom I now share an apartment and who got me into Nationstates, is a conservative who agrees with me on more issues than most people I've met on either side...including my parents. The other, with whom I used to share a different apartment (and the two of them were college roommates at one time), is a liberal and a self-proclaimed socialist. In every political discussion I have had with him, either we disagreed on a moral issue but reached the same conclusion about the government's right to adjudicate, or we followed almost the same exact course of reasoning and then reached opposite conclusions because in the end he would err on the side of perceived benefit to the greater majority while I would err on the side of individual choice.

The three of us generally get along swimmingly, even in political discussions.

Of course, the problem with that is...there are probably friends who didn't believe they would be on opposite sides of every civil war in history.

Another interesting question in my opinion would be, if the liberals and conservatives did go to war, whether it would be a war of control or a war of secession. Of course, a war of secession is only treated as such by one side...otherwise there wouldn't be any reason for the war part.

US Army. If you have great intel on where they are, and they have no intel on where you are, you can be wherever you want to be, when you want to be there, and they can't do anything about it.

And you were personally making these decisions?

And you were personally making these decisions?

I was a scout for the 2/502nd. We got intel, and went to check it out. It was so accurate that we knew when we were getting close.

I remember intentionally taking a break to smoke.

On the other hand, the Iraqis were essentially blind. They had no idea we were sitting within several hundred yards of their positions.

Also, it improves your public image. There are other forces beside Liberals and Conservatives, not just outside the US, and when these get involved it can make a significant difference how the media talk about you.
Indeed, if one really wants to think about what would happen in a US ideological civil war, they should look at the Chinese Civil War. When Kai-Shek's fascist army destroyed a dam to kill a communist army (or was it the Japanese?) the resulting flood killed thousands of people and millions lost their homes. That was a decisive turning point in bringing public support to Mao's communists.