A new civil war?

[Kheldarson]

Today's Cracked article: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-p...ext-civil-war/

Personally I don't think we're that bad yet, but it's a scary route we're going.

[s_stabeler]

I don't think it's likely anytime soon, but it's possible. ignoring the Cracked article for now, look at the conditions for a civil war:
1. a large number of people feeling disenfranchised
2. the feeling that violence is the only way to improve the situation

currently, considering that there is a general perception that Congress cares mainly about appeasing lobbyists, there is definitely a large number of people that feel disenfranchised- look at voter turnout in elections- however, at the moment, people don't think violence is the only solution.

I DO think that we are going to see mass protests becoming more common though. But outright civil war? I doubt it. That would require a large body of people that, frankly, didn't care that they would likely get killed.

[Andara Bledin]

I DO think that we are going to see mass protests becoming more common though. But outright civil war? I doubt it. That would require a large body of people that, frankly, didn't care that they would likely get killed.

A lot of people who know a lot more about how societies work say it's got to get a whole lot worse than it is now for us to get to the point where a civil war looks like an attractive option.

We don't have nearly enough of our population starving in the streets for people to rise up violently to put an end to it. The vast majority, while angry, are still comfortable enough that bread and circuses will keep them from getting too violent as yet.

[TheHuckster]

look at the conditions for a civil war:
1. a large number of people feeling disenfranchised
2. the feeling that violence is the only way to improve the situation

I would add:

3. Both sides are unwilling to compromise or come to some kind of agreement before war.

and, possibly:

4. The civilians think they have a snowball's chance of actually succeeding in their goals. (which given the fact that the government is armed to their eyeballs is unlikely)

On the case of police brutality, which the article touches on and is currently the catalyst for recent violent disfunction, I think leaders are finally going to start to wake up and do something about what has revealed itself to be an epidemic. Police departments are starting to slowly but surely add body cameras and public opinion of them is going to make a difference. Add to that the growing number of people who have cellphone video and are not afraid to submit it to the media to uncover their deeds.

Sooner or later, the police system is going to change, and I think it's going to happen before the public make rash decisions regarding civil war.

On the case of income gaps and the helpless belief that politics is all about pandering to the rich at the expense of the majority, that's a much more complicated problem. As the gap between rich and poor gapes on, I think a breaking point is going to be reached sooner than later, but it's hard to say what happens then. I could see some rebellious behavior ranging from rioting to domestic terrorism occurring, but you'd have to convince a great number of people to arm themselves and step up in order to have an all-out war break out. And, given the fact most reasonable people would agree that's unbelievably foolish given the military power they're up against, you'd have to be incredibly desperate to resort to that.

[Tama]

You would have to consider, also, that some of the soldiers could be a tossup.

Some might obey orders and take down this uprising. Others might side against the government.

[Aragarthiel]

You would have to consider, also, that some of the soldiers could be a tossup.

That's what I was thinking. Soldiers fight for our freedoms, not for the government, and if the government threatens our freedoms, there would most definitely be some that would think, "You know what? I'm not getting paid enough for this crap" and go defend their families at home.

[s_stabeler]

I would add:

3. Both sides are unwilling to compromise or come to some kind of agreement before war.

and, possibly:

4. The civilians think they have a snowball's chance of actually succeeding in their goals. (which given the fact that the government is armed to their eyeballs is unlikely)

On the case of police brutality, which the article touches on and is currently the catalyst for recent violent disfunction, I think leaders are finally going to start to wake up and do something about what has revealed itself to be an epidemic. Police departments are starting to slowly but surely add body cameras and public opinion of them is going to make a difference. Add to that the growing number of people who have cellphone video and are not afraid to submit it to the media to uncover their deeds.

Sooner or later, the police system is going to change, and I think it's going to happen before the public make rash decisions regarding civil war.

On the case of income gaps and the helpless belief that politics is all about pandering to the rich at the expense of the majority, that's a much more complicated problem. As the gap between rich and poor gapes on, I think a breaking point is going to be reached sooner than later, but it's hard to say what happens then. I could see some rebellious behavior ranging from rioting to domestic terrorism occurring, but you'd have to convince a great number of people to arm themselves and step up in order to have an all-out war break out. And, given the fact most reasonable people would agree that's unbelievably foolish given the military power they're up against, you'd have to be incredibly desperate to resort to that.

that sort of makes my point- an actual civil war (rather than mass protests) is not going to happen UNLESS enough people believe they have no other choice but to react violently.


I don't think ti would require people to be starving in the streets though- look at Libya and Syria, countries that have had civil wars in the past few years. In both countries, there weren't exactly people starving int he streets- people were sick of being ruled by a dictator (a large number of people felt disenfranchised) and were sufficiently angry about itr that they didn't necessarily care if they got killed.


Overall though, I agree the USA isn't going to see an outright civil war. Why? because the US isn't at the stage where they completely ignore the populace. Mass protests, possibly. But an outright uprising? I don't think so. ( unless whoever was President was stupid enough to order protesters gunned down- that probably WOULD trigger a civil war.)

[Greenday]

I think the article raises some interesting points, but some stuff is exaggerated. I've seen first hand how useful those "military" vehicles are in the middle of a natural disaster. They were able to do things that no Crown Vic or Charger could do.

I think the majority of the country could agree that the government doesn't represent our best interests. We are clearly ignored for the companies bankrolling the politicians.

There's just not nearly enough unrest to result in any civil war. Cops aren't any more violent against innocent people than they were before. The only difference now is that we have the means to easily catch them doing it.

[Gravekeeper]

I've seen first hand how useful those "military" vehicles are in the middle of a natural disaster. They were able to do things that no Crown Vic or Charger could do.

Yet that's not what the police are using them for. Nor is that even typically the police's job. That's why we have specialized organizations such as the Coast Guard, Search & Rescue, hell, even the Fire Department. If military resources are required in the midst of a natural disaster, that is literally what the National Guard is there for. >.>

Also, don't stick quotations around military. These are military vehicles, weapons and equipment. The entire point of the program that got you into this mess was to offer military surplus coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan to police departments at bargain bin prices.

Military resources should only be deployed on your own soil as a last resort. Not the first one because Chuck and his partner Frank can't wait to try out their bitchin' new APC they got from Iraq and go drive around the streets of Bumblefuck. Population 1000.

[Greenday]

Yet that's not what the police are using them for. Nor is that even typically the police's job. That's why we have specialized organizations such as the Coast Guard, Search & Rescue, hell, even the Fire Department. If military resources are required in the midst of a natural disaster, that is literally what the National Guard is there for. >.>

So, if there's a huge natural disaster, we should all just wait for the Coast Guard or National Guard to rescue us instead of the police who are everywhere already.

[Gravekeeper]

So, if there's a huge natural disaster, we should all just wait for the Coast Guard or National Guard to rescue us instead of the police who are everywhere already.

If the police are telling you they can't do this without you giving them a 30 ton APC from Iraq then yes. -.-

A search and rescue vehicle does not need military grade armour. Nor the extra weight, limited visibility, etc that comes with said armour.

[s_stabeler]

even if the police had the exact same SAR equipment as the National Guard and/or Coastguard, it may well not actually help.
1) in a disaster big enough to need military-grade SAR equipment, then it's a not inconsiderable possibility that SAR equipment held by the police would have been damaged in said disaster. So then all that expense is utterly useless.
2) the Coastgaurd and National Guard train regularly in SAR. Are YOU willing to pay extra taxes so that police can be regularly trained in the use of SAR equipoment that will probably never be used?

also, there's one major reason why giving the military equipment to the police was alwasy going to be a problem: There is a REASON why the Posse Commitatus act was introduced. ( It bans the Army from being used as a police force without Congressional approval) It is because the minset of someone on active duty isn't really suitable for someone meant to enforce the law- providing them with military equipment just reinforces the "it's me against everyone" attitude that CAUSES the problems we get with police.