"Civil War" trailer

[Sigmapolis]

Dumb take. Food and supplies can easily come into ports (or by air) and the largest populations have access. Just like the first Civil War, the rural side might make early gains but the size, money, weapons, and industrial power of urban areas would eventually crush them. Look at the population of Iowa. Then look at the population of one major US city.

A prolonged airlift couldn't hope to support the material needs of a modern economy at modern scales. The Allies did manage to do it in the late 1940s when the Soviets blocked Berlin, but that effort only provided the most basic of needs for a population used to wartime deprivations for 2.8 million.

The NYC metro area now has something like 20 million people. The "Northeast Corridor" from Boston south through NYC and Washington down to Virginia Beach is more like 50 million.

Another direct example is the German attempt to supply Stalingrad by air. It didn't work. The fact they thought it could superseded a German plan to attack into while simultaneously breaking out of the cauldron to either evacuate the trapped 6th Army or resupply it. That would have been a better plan.

You'd need wheels or boats.

Plus, if you are relying on aircraft, then you create obvious targets for the resistance. As the war in Ukraine is showing in force, MPADS are very effective, cheap, and easy to use for even a solo infantry solider. A civilian airliner or freighter would have no way of defending itself against such a system.

Industrial capacity is split between rural/exurban areas and the edges of cities nowadays. Nobody wants to have a factory in a commercial core or residential area like they did before automobiles when most people still had to walk to work. We don't make M-1 tanks in New York or Los Angeles the same way we made rifles in Springfield, MA (one of the larger cities in the country in the 1860s). We make them in small cities with factories in eastern Ohio and Alabama... places that at least lean red if not very red with their votes.

You can bring some supplies in by sea, but you can't put electricity on a boat. Even most major port cities lack the infrastructure to process liquid fuels or LNG from tankers. So New York and Washington are still going to be without power and fuel even if you can bring in food. And water transport does nothing to help you with interior metro areas like Dallas, Atlanta, Phoenix, Minneapolis, Denver, St. Louis, and Orlando.

You're talking about the northeast. Maybe they could gain quick control of that region but you still have huge population centers all over the country. No way could the coordinate and have the manpower to take over all of those quickly. Cities on the coast would have ports to provide supplies. I could see most of our allies aligning with the urban side of the conflict as well. It would be a total mess and would be anything but quick.

The Northeast Corridor is about 1/6th of U.S. population and includes its largest and wealthiest city and the national capital. Most of our leadership class lives there. Controlling it (or rather controlling the flow of resources into it that keep it livable) is going to be powerful in any such conflict. I figure a few guys with some improvised explosive can take out the power and fuel supplies to Washington, DC and then you just wait.

I do agree with your second point, though. It would be a mess.

 

[besserheimerphat]

A prolonged airlift couldn't hope to support the material needs of a modern economy at modern scales. The Allies did manage to do it in the late 1940s when the Soviets blocked Berlin, but that effort only provided the most basic of needs for a population used to wartime deprivations for 2.8 million.

The NYC metro area now has something like 20 million people. The "Northeast Corridor" from Boston south through NYC and Washington down to Virginia Beach is more like 50 million.

Another direct example is the German attempt to supply Stalingrad by air. It didn't work. The fact they thought it could superseded a German plan to attack into while simultaneously breaking out of the cauldron to either evacuate the trapped 6th Army or resupply it. That would have been a better plan.

You'd need wheels or boats.

Plus, if you are relying on aircraft, then you create obvious targets for the resistance. As the war in Ukraine is showing in force, MPADS are very effective, cheap, and easy to use for even a solo infantry solider. A civilian airliner or freighter would have no way of defending itself against such a system.

Industrial capacity is split between rural/exurban areas and the edges of cities nowadays. Nobody wants to have a factory in a commercial core or residential area like they did before automobiles when most people still had to walk to work. We don't make M-1 tanks in New York or Los Angeles the same way we made rifles in Springfield, MA (one of the larger cities in the country in the 1860s). We make them in small cities with factories in eastern Ohio and Alabama... places that at least lean red if not very red with their votes.

You can bring some supplies in by sea, but you can't put electricity on a boat. Even most major port cities lack the infrastructure to process liquid fuels or LNG from tankers. So New York and Washington are still going to be without power and fuel even if you can bring in food. And water transport does nothing to help you with interior metro areas like Dallas, Atlanta, Phoenix, Minneapolis, Denver, St. Louis, and Orlando.



The Northeast Corridor is about 1/6th of U.S. population and includes its largest and wealthiest city and the national capital. Most of our leadership class lives there. Controlling it (or rather controlling the flow of resources into it that keep it livable) is going to be powerful in any such conflict. I figure a few guys with some improvised explosive can take out the power and fuel supplies to Washington, DC and then you just wait.

I do agree with your second point, though. It would be a mess.

Whichever side gets the support of the American military will win. They'll also get the military's translog knowledge and weaponry. They regularly operate in those types of environments. Otherwise groups like Hamas, ISIS, PLA, etc would be regularly toppling governments.

Also depends on whether any foreign aid/interference occurs. I'm sure China would support whichever side is against the US government. Same for Russia. Though their contributions would probably be more virtual than physical. Would NATO send any support? Australia? South Korea? What about Latin America? Does North Korea go batshit crazy?

The US falling into chaos is going to be a global event, and how that unfolds will be much more critical than a West Virginia militia cutting out a section of railroad track.

 

[everyyard]

It wouldn’t be isolated rural vs urban. Europe, China, and Russia would be involved if for no other opportunity than to reign havoc. Europe probably sides with urban and China and Russia with rural since the rural areas seem to want autocracy anyway. Total and utter world destruction.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Whichever side gets the support of the American military will win. They'll also get the military's translog knowledge and weaponry. They regularly operate in those types of environments. Otherwise groups like Hamas, ISIS, PLA, etc would be regularly toppling governments.

Also depends on whether any foreign aid/interference occurs. I'm sure China would support whichever side is against the US government. Same for Russia. Though their contributions would probably be more virtual than physical. Would NATO send any support? Australia? South Korea? What about Latin America? Does North Korea go batshit crazy?

The US falling into chaos is going to be a global event, and how that unfolds will be much more critical than a West Virginia militia cutting out a section of railroad track.

Yes, whichever side the miliary chooses generally wins during the coup.

Those are poor examples of what this would look like, though.

Hamas *is* the de facto government of Gaza. The PLA *is* the de facto government of the West Bank. And ISIS wasn't an insurgent group the initiated a civil war in a nation-state with coherent borders and a strong sense of national identity (something Iraq and Syria definitely lack at this point in history). ISIS was an attempt to establish a literal caliphate. And it was well on the way to doing it until the U.S. and Europe showed up with airpower, special forces, and intelligence assets and proceeded to kick their teeth in.

Better examples would include the various Indochina Wars (the North Vietnamese against the French, the U.S., and the Chinese in turn, all eventually victories for the North Vietnamese to the point we just call them the "Vietnamese" now) and the Soviet and U.S. experiences in Afghanistan (and the British if you want to go back far enough). Such insurgencies holed up in difficult terrain can hold out and wait for decades.

Imagine a series of tribal mountain men who love pills, opioids, have long beards, love porn, who know the land and are total religious nutjobs. Am I describing the Taliban or West Virginia?

I didn't mention the fact that the American and European militaries had few reasons to pull punches in those conflicts. You weren't killing your fellow countrymen. You weren't damaging valuable economic assets of your own nation. I'm sure there was plenty of racism back there to dehumanize these various third-world opponents, too, which made it all the either to drop the napalm and Agent Orange on them.

None of this will be the case in a U.S. civil war.

The military might not "flip" but it also might not fight too hard.

 

[CyValley]

Yep, the amount a movie makes me care about the well being (or hopeful demise) of characters translates directly to how memorable and great a movie is to me.

Exactly. Why I was so worried about Hal 9000.

(kidding.)

 

[CyValley]

If the US were to break into a civil war, China would invade Taiwan the next day.

Just the beginning of global instability. The U.S. underpins so much, imagine the impact on Wall Street and world markets. Military clashes in world hotspots without engaged, fully functioning American forces.

Bank failures, rioting, economic collapse wiping out savings and retirement accounts, supply disruptions (remember the pandemic?). . . .

It would be awful for all of us (well, maybe not much the top one percent.)

 

[CyValley]

I can't find the tweet, but I read one from someone with the suggestion that too many people think a civil war would entail them and a group of their friends in killing people, but it's more likely finding your brother dead in a garbage dump with his hands tied up with electrical wire.

No one survives a civil war. If you aren't killed, you'll have family and friends that will be. Ordinary daily life that everyone relies on will no longer exist.

Maybe like Gaza, with a government's military attacking citizens as well as the rebels? (I'm not arguing a side, only projecting possible American violence.)

 

[simply1]

Yes, whichever side the miliary chooses generally wins during the coup.

Those are poor examples of what this would look like, though.

Hamas *is* the de facto government of Gaza. The PLA *is* the de facto government of the West Bank. And ISIS wasn't an insurgent group the initiated a civil war in a nation-state with coherent borders and a strong sense of national identity (something Iraq and Syria definitely lack at this point in history). ISIS was an attempt to establish a literal caliphate. And it was well on the way to doing it until the U.S. and Europe showed up with airpower, special forces, and intelligence assets and proceeded to kick their teeth in.

Better examples would include the various Indochina Wars (the North Vietnamese against the French, the U.S., and the Chinese in turn, all eventually victories for the North Vietnamese to the point we just call them the "Vietnamese" now) and the Soviet and U.S. experiences in Afghanistan (and the British if you want to go back far enough). Such insurgencies holed up in difficult terrain can hold out and wait for decades.

Imagine a series of tribal mountain men who love pills, opioids, have long beards, love porn, who know the land and are total religious nutjobs. Am I describing the Taliban or West Virginia?

I didn't mention the fact that the American and European militaries had few reasons to pull punches in those conflicts. You weren't killing your fellow countrymen. You weren't damaging valuable economic assets of your own nation. I'm sure there was plenty of racism back there to dehumanize these various third-world opponents, too, which made it all the either to drop the napalm and Agent Orange on them.

None of this will be the case in a U.S. civil war.

The military might not "flip" but it also might not fight too hard.

Things like Afghanistan are nations fighting in other nations though, and seem poor analogies to an urban/rural war in this country.
Might not fight too hard for their own friends and family?

 

[Sigmapolis]

Things like Afghanistan are nations fighting in other nations though, and seem poor analogies to an urban/rural war in this country.
Might not fight too hard for their own friends and family?

Rural/urban describes the war (well, all of them) in Afghanistan extremely well.

 

[besserheimerphat]

Yes, whichever side the miliary chooses generally wins during the coup.

Those are poor examples of what this would look like, though.

Hamas *is* the de facto government of Gaza. The PLA *is* the de facto government of the West Bank. And ISIS wasn't an insurgent group the initiated a civil war in a nation-state with coherent borders and a strong sense of national identity (something Iraq and Syria definitely lack at this point in history). ISIS was an attempt to establish a literal caliphate. And it was well on the way to doing it until the U.S. and Europe showed up with airpower, special forces, and intelligence assets and proceeded to kick their teeth in.

Better examples would include the various Indochina Wars (the North Vietnamese against the French, the U.S., and the Chinese in turn, all eventually victories for the North Vietnamese to the point we just call them the "Vietnamese" now) and the Soviet and U.S. experiences in Afghanistan (and the British if you want to go back far enough). Such insurgencies holed up in difficult terrain can hold out and wait for decades.

Imagine a series of tribal mountain men who love pills, opioids, have long beards, love porn, who know the land and are total religious nutjobs. Am I describing the Taliban or West Virginia?

I didn't mention the fact that the American and European militaries had few reasons to pull punches in those conflicts. You weren't killing your fellow countrymen. You weren't damaging valuable economic assets of your own nation. I'm sure there was plenty of racism back there to dehumanize these various third-world opponents, too, which made it all the either to drop the napalm and Agent Orange on them.

None of this will be the case in a U.S. civil war.

The military might not "flip" but it also might not fight too hard.

I know we're WAY off topic now but... if a collection of Appalachian militias could take over the US by blowing up some bridges and waiting, why is it different for Hamas vs Israel et al?

 

[simply1]

Rural/urban describes the war (well, all of them) in Afghanistan extremely well.

It’s not a civil war, it’s a foreign invasion. Completely different.

 

[Sigmapolis]

I know we're WAY off topic now but... if a collection of Appalachian militias could take over the US by blowing up some bridges and waiting, why is it different for Hamas vs Israel et al?

Israeli’s vital infrastructure doesn’t run through Gaza and the West Bank. The vital infrastructure for NYC and DC runs through Appalachia. Israel doesn’t rely on power plants and transmission that run through enemy territory vulnerable to easy interdiction (or other assets).

 

[Sigmapolis]

It’s not a civil war, it’s a foreign invasion. Completely different.

Afghanistan wasn’t simply a foreign invasion. There were relatively moderate forces there allied with the U.S. who drew their power and influence from the major cities. The Taliban comes from the countryside and mountains as you might expect. The U.S. invasion wasn’t a state-to-state conflict in its purest form. It was choosing a side (and the weaker side) in a civil war. The politics were more like Vietnam in we decided to get in the middle of a civil war.

 

[CyCoug]

I drove through rural North Central Florida yesterday and it was eye-opening to see how different their world is.

I heard a slightly humorous exchange at a Winn Dixie:

A lady in the grocery store was telling the meat clerk she wouldn’t by Smithfield ham because China bought them.

He directed her to some other brands, but told her to avoid another certain brand because “El Chapo was using them to smuggle drugs across the border.”

 

[ISUCyclones2015]

They released 2 more in the last month and one a day ago. It releases tomorrow nationwide, some got it a little earlier. Gonna go on Sunday Night I think. Pretty excited for the movie

 

[cyclonedave25]

Going to see this tomorrow. It better be good because I just spent $40 on 2 tix and I haven’t even got my popcorn and pop yet.

 

[RLD4ISU]

Going to see this tomorrow. It better be good because I just spent $40 on 2 tix and I haven’t even got my popcorn and pop yet.

What did you think?

We went last night. Thought it was good, not what IMO is a great movie. Intense at times. If someone is on the fence whether they want to pay to see it in the theater or wait, I'd suggest waiting.

For those interested in the movie that haven't read up on the plot: The movie doesn't really doesn't get into the civil war part - who is fighting against each other and the reason(s). It's completely about the journalists covering the war, their struggles and what they go through (plus personally - emotionally, mentally), and why they do it. You know that California, Texas and Florida are in it.

I'd probably watch it again (but only after it's released for free) to see if I could figure out more about what's happening. There were a couple parts in the movie where so much was going on.

 

[Cfinnerty16]

Saw it last night, my fiance & I both gave it 3.5 out of 5. It was good, but wasn’t what I expected from the pure war photo journalists angle.
I did like to see the actor who played Pablo Escobar in Netflix’s “Narcos” get out of that role & he did a pretty damn good job in this movie.

 

[KnappShack]

What did you think?

We went last night. Thought it was good, not what IMO is a great movie. Intense at times. If someone is on the fence whether they want to pay to see it in the theater or wait, I'd suggest waiting.

For those interested in the movie that haven't read up on the plot: The movie doesn't really doesn't get into the civil war part - who is fighting against each other and the reason(s). It's completely about the journalists covering the war, their struggles and what they go through (plus personally - emotionally, mentally), and why they do it. You know that California, Texas and Florida are in it.

I'd probably watch it again (but only after it's released for free) to see if I could figure out more about what's happening. There were a couple parts in the movie where so much was going on.

Sounds a lot like Kung Fu Panda 4

 

[cyclonedave25]

What did you think?

We went last night. Thought it was good, not what IMO is a great movie. Intense at times. If someone is on the fence whether they want to pay to see it in the theater or wait, I'd suggest waiting.

For those interested in the movie that haven't read up on the plot: The movie doesn't really doesn't get into the civil war part - who is fighting against each other and the reason(s). It's completely about the journalists covering the war, their struggles and what they go through (plus personally - emotionally, mentally), and why they do it. You know that California, Texas and Florida are in it.

I'd probably watch it again (but only after it's released for free) to see if I could figure out more about what's happening. There were a couple parts in the movie where so much was going on.

Agree with you.
It was not what I was expecting going in. It was okay and I’m glad I saw it, but I would not pay to see it again.
It was not worth the $60 I spent on 2 tickets, popcorn and a drink.

And yes, if anybody is on the fence, save your $ and wait.