The Trump

What a mad lad

Call me a pessimist, but I think we're fucked.

We've seen time and time again that the Republicans will stand by Putin no matter what and defend him. Now we're seeing blatant, traitorous attacks by Putin against the U.S. and it's all perfectly legalized.

Putin pushed the election to Trump, he's invested money and manpower into taking over America and succeeded. He'll do anything to keep that power, including stealing the midterms. The ONLY way we get out of this is by getting Dem control again, which won't happen because not only is Putin going to steal the midterms, but he'll do it blatantly without any disregard for consequences because there are none. Trump is actively, VOCALLY helping him because he knows as soon as the Dems get the House and Senate he's gone.

We can't win the midterms because our votes will be fraudulated and hacked by Putin with the help of our own government. People keep saying "JUST VOTE!" but that's not enough. Voting means jack shit if every voting machine is hacked and people aren't able to get to the polls because Putin is doing everything he can to suppress votes.

There's nothing we can do. Putin won. We're fucked. If we try to engage in a civil war we will lose because it's a bunch of liberals against the Putin and a million rednecks with hundreds of thousands of guns.

I wish there was a way out but there isn't and it scares the absolute shit out of me !

a million rednecks with hundreds of thousands of guns

Check you're are math. There's more guns than people but less than a third of people have a gun. Also, half the guns are owned by 3% of the population.

>>2,3
Don't worry, based Putin will sell them some extra stuff in case of civil war. A million rednecks with rocket launchers will win vs anything short of strategic carpet bombing. Tanks are very bad at urban combat and rough terrain, helicopters are vulnerable to grenade/rocket launchers and infantry would be demoralized with too much trained snipers.
Unless liberals invent some terminator robot army, they'll lose. However even if they do try them, such things will be expensive and require lots of electricity/fuel, so even that is in question if energy supplies/grids are attacked. The best cost-effective warfare solution will be likely some cheap drones, but as all aircraft they will not be armored enough to resist rifle fire, especially higher caliber stuff.
However to win a civil war with drones, liberals would have to operate them, and since they alienated the gamer demographic, i think they'll have to resort to fake gamer girls and tranny twitch streamers with noodle arms.
They will lose the war.

>>4
Don't forget to factor in population density. Blues tend to be more urban , while the reds are more rural. Being able to employ seige tactics against cities will also offer an advantage.

>>5
Siege tactics are irrelevant. Cities without food supplies and loss of electric grid will be death traps.
All roads to the cities bringing food and products will be robbed and looted by either enemy forces or opportunist urban gangs. Civilization is a fragile thing and a civil war is extremely disruptive to all aspects of society.

>>6
cutting off supply lines is seige tactics, dolt

>>7
cutting off culture and community ties is a liberal tactic
pitting people against their own people

Law and order in the "urban america" exists only because of social arrangements(the welfare state, medicare), food subsidies(food stamps) and a robust transportation system for food. Without food supplies, authority will start to deteriorate fast.
People will fight and rob for food, just to survive.
>but America isn't a third world country
Well there are few preppers and rich people but urban population in its mass will be poor, confused and hungry.
I would give it a 3-5 days without food and there will be city-wide riots with crime gangs looting everything.
As this violence spreads to suburbs, there will be less law enforcement personnel to patrol the territory and it will go out of control.
>but its not what happens in history
Read a few books on civil wars and revolts, cities are not shining beacons of civilization and hope. They're technically high-density concentration camps with very high resource use.
They as effective as transport systems quality.
What happens to average modern city in case of civil war?
You think it some slight drop in quality of life? Maybe less food variety? A risk of artillery strikes?
A civil war is not a picnic in the park. Its a brutal adventure into depths of human depravity and breakdown of social institutions.

Siege stage:
1. Waste disposal: waste is usually allocated places far from cities(dumps and incinerators). In case of mortal risk, waste disposal stops. City becomes stinky and waste obstructs traffic.
This is usually the first sign of breakdown. Many small systems that depend on transportation start suffer losses and refuse to venture out of safe zones. Safe zones become smaller.

2.Food supplies stop: both the source and transport route will have to be 100% safe to supply a city. Air drops are extremely expensive. Rationing systems are employed to stretch supplies. Preppers/Rich houses(who often already left the country, but left nice mansions and houses) are raided and their supplies are confiscated by law enforcement as situation deteriorates.
Trucks and food supply spots are targeted by criminals but repulsed by police/army units on guard.
Stray cats and dogs are captured for food. Some cases of cannibalism are reported. People fight for more rations and distribution system are strained.

Now the fun begins:
Enemy forces may start bombarding the city with missiles/rockets/artillery, sensing a weakness in their position.
If the city isn't conquered/surrendering and the enemy is not interested there are more stages as city and its defending forces deteriorate. (Medieval cities with their large-scale supplies for winter may have ironically lasted far longer due having more supplies per person.)

3.Electricity blackout begins: grid failures and sabotage of power plants/powerlines/substations remove most electric supply, the lifeblood of modern civilization. Most technology stops working - this is essentially the end of "modern city life".
People subsist on fuel supplies and generators. Crime begins to intensify, using lack of lightning and effective patrols. Food is treated as currency and is scarce: flaws in distribution and popular demand create a black market for food.
Large-scale cannibalism, children are stolen for food as animals disappear from streets. Army mutinies,police units become unsatisfied and leave ranks. This is usually where siege ends and city surrender to enemies, but in case enemies are not interested and citizens are unable to leave theres even more fun.


4.Fuel supplies run out: electricity and transport system stop completely. Civil society begins to break down into tribes and clans. As energy and food are missing, the average person will have the late but bright idea to leave the city regardless of risk to himself(many will try leave even through artillery barrages or minefields). Minefields around cities are quite the meme as well as mined roads(IEDs in iraq are recent example).
Enemies on higher elevation may start firing into the city unopposed as the ammunition of defenders runs out.
Army and police are now not better than angry crime gangs, law and order disappear. Tribal conflict and ethnic tensions prevent cohesion.
See film "The Road" for inspiration.

5. Crime gangs and opportunist groups of former soldier/police overpower law enforcement and army command. City is lost in chaos and will require external forces to restore order.
The only chance to survive for city, is allied/foreign intervention.


6.City is ruined and abandoned to the countryside. Enemy forces establish nominal control and drive out remnants of gangs. The land is filled with corpses and damage from artillery/bombing/urban warfare that will require decades(in case of large modern cities, several decades) to clear up and restore(if population recovers).

>>7
Supply lines disruption is not necessary a form of siege. As i said earlier, food supply becomes target of robbers, crime gangs and enemy forces. Food in civil war is extremely valuable and is primary objective of logistics.
Even if the city isn't under a siege it cannot guarantee the food will come safely. Food supplies will have to get armed patrols, they will have to clear roads ahead from mines and ambushes.
When agrarian territory is lost, food sources decrease.

Its like people think a civil war has defined army vs army tactical maneuvers , clear battle lines and food supplies are allowed to the cities unmolested, with Geneva convention laws in effect. Civil war will remove such illusions and conventions quickly. The are no "defined battle line" where grand armies fire at each other from safe distance. Cities are not immune to combat, there isn't a foreign army vs the city+country. Its a chaotic, unpredictable game of high-speed chess.

Has anyone in this thread has read any in-depth stories on Yemen or Syrian civil war..?

>>11
I've read SIEGE, which counts.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/jul/21/civilians-flee-yemen-besieged-port-city-hodeidah-fearing-ceasefire-collapse?CMP=twt_gu

>>13
People often think you can't really siege a port city so it will always get supplies: its a dangerous illusion.

A dozen boats can wreck havoc(as Somalian pirate demonstrate) on entire international shipping lanes.
Sea caravans escorted by military vessels and close guard of port facilities will be required, plus sieged port city will be lacking currency and trade resources to afford most stuff, making traders wary of risky business.

In case of civil war, trade ships/containers will be targeted as they're pretty much sea-borne trucks. Even if traders choose to escort all transports with military, there is still risk of piracy - a military ship can be sunk by relatively cheap missles or sea mines(Japan was essentially defeated by sea mining campaign which crippled its economy).
Still its much better chance than landlocked cities without river access, they can escape in worst case.

funny how it’s the liberals that are the war mongering conspiracy theorists now
just because the guy they don’t like is in power and is keeping the peace, lol

America is a Russian bitch now.

>>15
Please stop calling them liberals, they're clearly not.

TRUMP = JEW

>>17
no true scotsman etc