Hacker News Reader

Comment by maerF0x0 | Hacker News Reader

more than half of americans are unfit for a bar fight let alone a war. I hate to say it but these kinds of surveys are pretty weak. I recall a friend who's a history buff telling me something along the lines of non-professional soldiers often refuse to shoot their firearms, or intentionally miss, because people often don't truly want to kill. A quick google suggests some credibility to this claim[1].

I always try to remember that survey science simply tells us what people say on surveys, not what is actually the truth.

[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/killing-does-not-com...

View on HN

A civil war isn't always a war by civilians.

Consider a scenario where the government is increasingly turned into a mexican standoff between completely entrenched branches of government. Supreme court is completely doing its own thing, the president starts abusing emergency powers to circumvent a ceaselessly filibustering congress and senate. Nothing gets done, and the country starts suffering from neglect and mismanagement.

It wouldn't be unheard of for a military coup to occur in such circumstances, in fact, it's a rough parallel to Julius Caesar's coup d'etat, which resulted in a civil war because some people didn't like the idea of having Caesar as a dictator and wanted to remain a republic, even if it was incredibly corrupt and dysfunctional.

Whether that is realistic today in the united states is another thing.

>> Whether that is realistic today in the united states is another thing.

I didnt think a land war in Europe was a realistic thing in today's world, but here we are.

A question, a statement and a proposal:

- is your proposed "military coup" a "civil war"?

- This entire discussion is fruitless b/c no two of us have the same definition (or even a clear conception) of the term "civil war". And we have for reference only past civil wars (especially the USA's war between the states).

- We could speculate loosely using and poor surveys unleashed on the great unwashed masses (and us) by surveyors interested less in their agenda than in raw screen-clicks. Instead why not pass by this article, leaving it to dry up and blow away in the dessicating winds of e-space?

I don't think there is a super well defined criteria for what's a civil war and what's a military coup and so on. Military coups can turn into civil wars (Caesar's coup is an example). Doesn't always happen, sometimes they fail (or succeed) so spectacularly that there isn't much of a war to follow.

I do agree that speculation is sort of pointless. I think circumstances may increase or decrease the likelihood of such an event, and circumstances look like they are more conducive to one now than in 1992, but I don't think you can say that when such-and-such happens, civil war is almost inevitable.

I find the parallels to Caesar in a different way. Caesar took his army into Rome because he had been ordered to return to Rome without his army, at which point his political enemies would have destroyed him.

Trump is talking about running in 2024 because it's the only way he can escape being destroyed by January 6 and various related legal problems.

Now, Trump isn't a general of an army. Yes, he was commander in chief, but the army would (I presume) not have followed him to the extent of obeying illegal orders. But if Trump wins and gets increasingly legally cornered, he's going to try to find a way out, no matter what laws it breaks, and some of those ways are going to tear the country apart.

I don't think most civil wars involve a high percentage of the population as combatants. Victims, maybe, but not combatants. So I don't think it's necessary that anywhere near half the population engage in fighting, for us to have one.

> I recall a friend who's a history buff telling me something along the lines of non-professional soldiers often refuse to shoot their firearms, or intentionally miss, because people often don't truly want to kill.

First, civil wars in fact happen despite the above. Second, badly trained soldiers go to wars and then commit horrible atrocities there.

On Killing by Dave Grossman explores the research backing up your friend's assertion in depth. I highly recommend that book to anyone whose interest is piqued by your comment.

Dave Grossman is the guy who goes around giving police departments seminars on the warrior mindset, including telling them that they'll have the best sex of their life immediately after they kill someone in the line of duty.

The core research that "On Killing" was based on (S.L.A. Marshall’s "ratio of fire") was probably fabricated[1]. I'd treat any claims in the book with a lot of skepticism.

[1] From https://www.gwern.net/docs/history/s-l-a-marshall/1988-spill...:

> His surviving field notebooks show no signs of statistical compilations that would have been necessary to deduce a ratio as precise as Marshall reported later in "Men Against Fire".

Grossman devotes almost an entire page to the history of controversy over Marshall's results in the Notes of "On Killing"*, p. 336 (Section 1: Killing and the Existence of Resistance") . IOW Grossman clearly acknowledges the debate and welcomes more research.

So out of 400 pages, Grossman only devotes part of one page to the fact that the entire basis of the book is probably fraudulent? That doesn’t seem very reassuring.

Obviously you and Grossman disagree.

For those still reading, the controversial aspects that grandmczeb speaks of (and which Grossman has addressed) is discussed here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.L.A._Marshall#Controversies

Dave Grossman? The fucking Killology guy? The guy who tells cops that the day they kill someone will be the day they have the best sex of their life? That Dave Grossman?

My understanding is that was based on research from SLA Marshall which might have been fabricated [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.L.A._Marshall#Research_metho...

Why this is so remains contested; Marshall argued that even with their own lives at risk, the resistance of the average individual “...toward killing a fellow man" was such that "he will not...take life if it is possible to turn away from that responsibility and at the vital point, he becomes a conscientious objector".[2] Others argue so-called 'low fire' is a function of training and discipline, and is a positive attribute.[3] These debates continue since understanding is crucial to overcoming them through training, as well as dealing with actual or potential combat-stress disorder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.L.A._Marshall

The survey didn't ask whether people wanted a civil war, or would participate in one. It asked whether they expected it to happen. Whether the respondents themselves were fit/capable is kind of irrelevant.

> more than half of americans are unfit for a bar fight let alone a war

Seeing the kind of insurrectionists that tried to take over the Capitol in 2021, I'll say the bar is very low. If there's a civil war, it will probably be an astroturfed takeover so the worst people can hold even more power.

I'm not sure how accurate it is, but I've heard it said only 3% of Americans actually fired a weapon in the American Revolution (and likely the Civil War as well). Still those unfit to fight did often fulfill a role by supporting the economic engines supplying those who did fight.

Not accurate. This is a claim frequently made by the far-right "Three-Percenters" paramilitary group, and they use it to recruit and radicalize followers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Percenters

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/grou...

Subtract all women and children, and all men over about age 30 or unfit for some reason. That doesn't get you to 3%, but that's the maximum number who would be involved.

The cutoff for draft wad 45 years old.

Could be a cyberwar though.

Bar fight? They can't even put mask on. Good luck following orders and combat readiness.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com