Comment by donw | Hacker News Reader

Comment by donw | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The US lost that near-monopoly years ago.

Broadly speaking, I think we're witnessing the birth of three distinct global powers.

One is centered on the US, and consists (broadly) of Canada, Mexico, the rest of Latin America, the Commonwealth nations, Japan, Korea, Israel, and Taiwan.

An American civil war would destabilize this to a large degree, so we'll have to see if that plays out.

Edit, since people seem confused: This would be an absolute nightmare scenario, but it is in the realm of possibility, and would massively change international political structures.

Another is centered on Germany and France, and controls Europe, parts of Africa, and the Middle East.

Finally, we've got China, which will likely control a big chunk of Africa and Southeast Asia.

Russia is a tough one, but I see them siding with China or Europe.

Contested territory will include Taiwan, bits of the Middle East, and an escalation of the border disputes with Japan. Likely bits of eastern Europe, plus conflicts on the China/India border...

What a time to be alive.

Edit: Just because somebody says that something is a possibility doesn't mean that they want that thing to happen.

Me coming down with a case of COVID is a possibility. In fact, I'm operating under the assumption that I will be infected at some point, regardless of precautions (masks, hand-washing, stepping back from my competitive doorknob-licking career, etc.)

That doesn't mean I want a case of Horribly Shitty Virus With Not-Yet Well-Documented Complications.

I'm just prepared for the worst (as best as I can), and hoping for the best (because why not?)

American Civil War 2 is an impossible fantasy. You need regional divisions in the military, which we don't have. These new alliances don't make sense either.

An impossible fantasy to be sure, but one which the second amendment people love to talk up at every opportunity.

No, "American Civil War II" is an absolute nightmare scenario.

I would go as far as to say we're in a cold one right now.

I would not have imagined this possible four years ago, but now, given the level of division... yeah, it appears to be on the table.

That's cause for fairly grave concern, by the way.

Imagine that the election goes into a toss-up. Which it likely will. Both parties have been laying the groundwork to contest the election, between claims of "voter suppression" and "voter fraud".

I don't think either team would accept anything other than an absolute landslide victory from the other side. And even then, maybe not.

I could see the Western seaboard (plus Hawaii) seceding in the case of a Trump victory. In the case of a Biden victory, I'd expect years of domestic insurgency, which I'd still call a "civil war".

Either way, I don't see any way out for the US right now that isn't outright ugly.

I very, very much hope I'm wrong, of course, and that things calm down after November (regardless of who wins).

Why, because of the protests? If the protests had the potential to overthrow the government by force, they would be met with bombs and bullets. Civil wars are fought by armies and the US military is completely unified behind the preservation of the US government.

Yes, but in the event of a highly disputed election, which government?

(I don't think all the stuff above is very likely, because I think the Trump hold on power is a lot shallower than most, but I do think there's going to be polling station violence in some places, continuing conflict between federal and state law enforcement, and a lot of lawsuits after the election contesting individual vote counts, far more so than Bush vs Gore. Especially over postal ballots.)

> Civil wars are fought by armies

May I direct your attention to the Cultural Revolution? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

The possibility is there.

> The US military is completely unified behind the preservation of the US government.

I agree! But what happens if the question of "Who is the commander-in-chief" becomes unclear?

That is the possibility that's on the table. If there's an absolutely clear victory in the next election and the loser steps down, then we're in way better shape.

Posse Comitatus remains intact, and factional violence is left in the hands of domestic law enforcement (whatever that looks like at the time).

Which is what I'm seriously hoping for.

But if not... once again, I'm amazed to even be considering that possibility, but it's there.

Cultural Revolution was not a civil war, and also...how would that possibly happen in America?As for who is the president, they would just defer to SCOTUS like in 2000.

> Cultural Revolution was not a civil war

That's splitting hairs.

Mao's Red Guards -- student revolutionaries and young adults -- effected a drastic shift in power, from a more liberal government to Mao (a strong authoritarian), and something on the order of three million people died as a direct consequence.

Moreover, China lost an unbelievable amount of its history, as revolutionaries purged the "Four Olds" (customs, culture, habits, and ideas).

Pedantically, it's not splitting hairs when we do (at least did, last century) have an internationally accepted definition of a civil war:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23880237

> Civil wars are fought by armies and the US military is completely unified behind the preservation of the US government.

Let me give you an examples of a Lebanese civil war

Second, it's not that US potential adversaries have ever cease attempts to recruit 5th column in the general staff.

A big double digit percentage of civil wars in 20th century were foreign power assisted, if not staged, and triggered by them.

US generals with extreme right political views are ripe for taking for a country that seemed to ace recruiting rightist elements for its cause. You know what country I am talking about.

The US generals seem to the left of, or at least nonplussed by, the Trump faction. The removal of the captain of the Theodore Roosevelt didn't help his support either.

It's the patchwork of law enforcement who are more willing to cause street-level trouble. We've already seen one protest which involved people bringing guns to a state legislature. What if there was another one, in response to an "abolish the police" candidate winning locally, and the police backed the occupiers over the legitimate state government?

Why would the states secede? What do they have to gain?

Calexit isn’t supported by even half of the California population. These scenarios are nothing more than fantasies for people who like to discuss war scenarios.

Three arguments against the western seaboard plus hawaii seceding:

    Kitsap
    Pearl Harbor
    San Diego

+ JBLM

I stuck to those naval bases (Bay Area HN'ers will notice the absence of Alameda and Moffett) because I'd guess others could, in principle, be relocated without notably affecting their missions[1], but the US would never tolerate losing its (not so?) Pacific harbours, especially the sub pens.

Best (with non-generic probability) scenario for secession I can imagine at this point: under a foreign nuclear umbrella, the west coast agrees that (a) in exchange for retaining responsibility for the federal debt, the US gets all the nukes, and (b) Ecotopia gives the US a long term lease on the bases mentioned above, à la Subic Bay.

As Hawaii was originally filibustered in to the Union, it might be poetic justice for it to join Ecotopia, but both finances and Pearl Harbor would far more likely leave it subordinated to the haoles in DC.

(Unlike Vancouver with the Trans Mountain Pipeline, Ecotopia doesn't seem connected to the US' crude pipeline network, so that part would be easy. Financially, the west coast would find it easier to balance their budgets if they were independent. I doubt Ecotopia would retain any inland territories, but under capitalism and in the absence of blockades, money gets you through times of no food much better than food gets you through times of no money.

I've discovered the items above en passant, so I haven't bothered running down the rest of the feasibility arguments — but I'm sure someone, or even multiple someones in multiple jurisdictions, has.)

[1] Note that the B-52s have recently been relocated from Guam to somewhere in flyover country without, according to the USAF, affecting their missions. (What mission a 70-year old design could still have is above my pay grade.)

Bonus track: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SOryJvTAGs

I'm not saying that I think that it is probable, but if one where to look at other civil wars in history, would they all really be that different from current america?

You don't need divisions in the military. You need divisions in society, of which in the US there are plenty.

It would look nothing like the original American Civil War; this would be a 4th generational war. The most conventional it would look like would be the war against the Iraqi insurgency. Defections and sabotage within the US military combined with attacks on infrastructure would reduce its ability to function normally.

In such a scenario, Humpty Dumpty is not being put back together again. The US would most likely break apart, assuming some foreign power doesn't manage to conquer all of its former territory.

A German, French and Russian alliance is probably the winning move and was thwarted more than once by Anglo-Saxon intervention. Right now the US actively tries to sabotage the Nordstream 2 completion (https://www.dw.com/de/ist-nord-stream-2-noch-zu-retten/a-538...), which would make Germany energy independent from US controlled Gas.

Is it bad that I read that as the "Nordstrom Completion", and was wondering why the Europeans needed more overpriced fashion items?

Germany hasn‘t needed US gas in a long time. There‘s plenty of LNG from Qatar and other nations on the market plus the existing pipelines for Russian gas through Ukraine etc.

Only the US wants Germany to buy American gas because $$$

Qatar is a US protectorate, just as it was a British before (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Udeid_Air_Base). The British still maintain planes there. They have no independent means of survival. Most of the oil and gas is either in the US / British sphere of influence. The few exceptions (Russia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Lybia, Syria, Venezuela), Transit countries like Georgia, Ukraine. All were messed with in subtle and not so subtle ways

That is very nice. Still doesn't fill the US coffers when gas is being bought there.

In the far past perhaps but EU(led by Germany and France to a good extent) and Russia won't be allies any time soon or you've been missing a ton of Russian efforts in it's neighbourhoods.

Russia's very much opposed to a more united EU and matters such as a joint energy union. Stuff like Nord Stream is mostly a consequence of it's successful subversion (see Gerhard Schröder) and playing of members interest against eachother (see Bulgaria's pipeline being blocked) which allows it to keep higher pricing and even use it's pricing as a political tool.

Russia will do it's own thing i believe as it has been doing. Allying and inserting itself where possible in the likes of Syria, etc striking deals with Egypt, china, etc wherever it suits it because despite being largely a terrible oligarchy it has managed to steer itself well in the governments self interest under Putin.

The Russian and EU political and social landscapes are too at odds with each other for this to happen, at least in anything other than a doomsday scenario for both groups. Russia is more likely to join up with China than the EU.

>Another is centered on Germany and France, and controls Europe, parts of Africa, and the Middle East.

These countries are trying to get Facebook to pay a regional tax, not rebelling against sixty years of NATO. I don't understand how you can consider them a distinct global power from the US, and I'm unclear what these non-contested regions you think are part of their base.

You've completely forgotten India, which is really the one power that can credibly stand up to China on its own.

Part of the Commonwealth, no?

Whilst relations are better it had itself set up as a 3rd faction and even being closer to the soviets during the cold war due to US alliance with Pakistan. Now Pakistan has largely shifted into China's sphere of influence and the US has slowly turned it's attention towards China that might change but i don't expect it to be in a way as subservient as other commonwealth nations like Australia.

I feel this is a really solid summary of the world order for the coming decades. We're still in a cold war mindset that suggests there has to be US vs. X with X now increasingly being China), but in a globalized world we'll see a more fragmented landscape. The US seems to move towards the final stages of its dominance which leaves space for others, but this space can be filled by a multitude of interlinked competitors.

Russia is much much much smaller, but they have a large mental footprint.

where's India in all that?

Part of the Commonwealth, no?

yeah but with its own problems and a location that would make it think more carefully about escalating antagonizing China to military intervention

Commonwealth implies Oceania. (but does pakistan stay in, or go with Eastasia?)

For both Orwellian and cultural reasons, I could easily see russia modifying some laws and joining Eurasia.

Not in modern times no. It gained complete independence from Britain in the 50s I think? Unless you're referring to all countries that were at one time controlled by the British Empire, which I think is a little out of touch with how much those countries have diverged from one another politically since then.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations

Ah I thought you were referring to the Commonwealth realms [1], which do not include India but do include nations like Canada and Australia. The point on diverging political stances still stands.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm

Why wishing them Civil war? Do you have real information that this is in the making? Or you are against America and wish her evil?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com