Based on the state of American political discourse, we're already deep in a Sybil war.
Water shortages--which is a reality right now.
A good, sane, competent, rational, reasonable, decent black man in the White House.
Helen Lawson making a comeback.
A future Supreme Court decision that correctly asserted that the right to bear arms was solely dependent on the establishment of a well-regulated militia chartered to secure a free state. Like Switzerland.
That's when the guns would start getting used.
A drummed up police action in response to a faux coup in "lawless Mexico"
No, R10, we'd never go to war over going to war with Mexico.
And frankly, any comparison with hide-bound Switzerland is insulting to Americans.
yeah, it's going to be water.
R12, so far R9 and R5 present the most likely scenarios (well, aside from the Helen Lawson comeback).
I'll make it simpler, R12. If the 2nd amendment were correctly interpreted so that guns are legal only for participating in national guard, military, or other organized militias. Not private use.
How would water shortages cause a civil war? I can't envision that scenario.
"How would water shortages cause a civil war? I can't envision that scenario."
Just don't fuck with the 1%'s supply of Evian.
Ann Romney herself is a justifiable cause for civil unrest
R16, given that's the most COMMON scenario worldwide already, I'm not sure how you can't envision it.
Most wars are fought over resources.
Inequitable distribution of wealth
Watch World War Z, that's what it will be like
[quote]A future Supreme Court decision that correctly asserted that the right to bear arms was solely dependent on the establishment of a well-regulated militia chartered to secure a free state. Like Switzerland.
Isn't military service compulsory in Switzerland? And they're required to keep a weapon at home. I fail to see how this would change much here.
r19, the U.S. is not the world. The eastern half of the U.S. has plenty of water. For a civil war over resources, you need two factions of the country fighting over it.
Is California going to send its militia to the Great Lakes?
It won't be a civil war it will just be a gradual slide toward breaking up and then when it hits it will be speedy and relatively peaceful like the USSR. Different cultures and beliefs are being more etched in stone and resentment builds.
Pretty soon states will begin holding back revenues. Refusing to participate in federal programs. Dealing with immigration on their own. Using their own state supreme courts to justify nullification. A congress and its federal offices unable to act on anything. You will never have enough manpower to enforce everything. A president really only welcome in a few areas of the country like the Northeast, California, and a few urban centers.
Wow all of that is kind of happening now. I say within 15 years the slide towards a breakup will be undeniable. Probably five separate countries to emerge.
In a word, "Follies".
Still not seeing it, r24.
The US is far, far too assimilated now possibly to have a civil war. However, I could imagine an insurrection or complete cultural disintegration as a result of an accident which disrupted food for more than 6 hours.
5 separate countries? That wouldn't last long. If an area had resources, somebody would want to take them. When does the rest of the world walk in if the US is in a weakened state?
I do think you can quickly have a civil war if a small, armed group with some ties to larger issues wants one.