I don't understand mentions of "civil war" in the public lately (there's even a Hollywood movie about it).
There is only one party controlling the armed forces. I also doubt that any high-ranking officers would take the troops they command out of the command structure and then even order them to attack the government and other troops.
Not to mention that the new administration did some cleanup among the ranks already.
The chances for enough, or any, troops breaking away from the command are very low, no?
So who is going to fight that "civil war"? It looks to me like the government has overwhelming power. At most I see some troops refuse orders to shoot at the American people, or at other troops.
Armed civilians with their puny little guns and little organization are right out as soon as any part of the military joins a fight, that's why I only mentioned the latter to begin with.
We have several recent real-world examples of that not working out for the military. Assuming like minded people wont self-organize is a bad starting point, and jets and tanks have a tough time doing things like enforcing curfews. That's also ignoring that such a scenario would involve portions of said military force joining the civilian resistance, including those in leadership positions.
Besides, I've always hated this argument, because why fight the military when they can just target the politicians directly.
Only when the military is not serious since they are not fighting for their own lands and the civilians are backed by another country. When the military is fighting civilians in its own homeland the civilians stand no chance unless they get massive help from foreign powers.
> Besides, I've always hated this argument, because why fight the military when they can just target the politicians directly.
Even if you do that its still the military that gets to decide the next leader, killing their leader does not lead to democracy. Nazism didn't end with Hitlers death, it ended with the country being taken over. Oppressive Communisms didn't end with Stalins death etc. There are always enough likeminded people that you can't end a horrible reign just by killing the leader.
An excellent point. Just look at the line of succession to the Presidency right now[0]:
No. Office Incumbent Party
1 Vice President JD Vance Republican
2 Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson Republican
3 President pro tempore of the Senate Chuck Grassley Republican
4 Secretary of State Marco Rubio Republican
5 Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent Republican
6 Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth Republican
7 Attorney General Pam Bondi Republican
8 Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum Republican
9 Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins Republican
10 Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick Republican
11 Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer Republican
12 Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Independent
13 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Scott Turner Republican
14 Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy Republican
15 Secretary of Energy Chris Wright Republican
16 Secretary of Education Linda McMahon Republican
17 Secretary of Veterans Affairs Doug Collins Republican
18 Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem Republican
Now which one is dedicated to the Constitution/rule of law?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_lin...
In the 1940s, the DoD published a field manual on how folk with "puny little guns" - or no guns at all - can fight.
I've always been of the idea that 100 guys with guns gets wiped out with 1 bomb nowadays, so why do individuals arm themselves to the teeth and LARP in the woods? it is looking more like that's going to be a paramilitary arm, or "private consultants" to ICE and CBP. those resources aren't for nothing, and they certainly aren't for taking down the US military.
This is a WW2 figure who had a song written about him after he was martyred. It became the anthem of the Nazi party. I didn't ever hear about him in my many years in the US, until a few days ago on Wikipedia:
Tell the cops that they can shoot anyone looking aggressive and not get questioned and they will happily go out and quell any resistance, don't you think? Tell them they can put people in prison without lawyers getting in their way, that they can torture people to speak without anyone stopping them etc.
US police is very close to a fascist police already so very little has to change. Remember that the US police culture roots came from policing slaves.
While they are actively replacing cabinet positions with loyal outsiders that have little-to-no experience within the organizations they now run (eg Patel, Hegseth), I think it’s reasonable to assume that there remains career leaders throughout that would put country before king.
You also need to look at loyalty within the rank and file of course.
When I talk to conservative friends about this scenario they generally laugh; of course the military would choose country over king. At least for now I think there remains enough institutional integrity that this is plausible.
The military is not composed of constitutional lawyers and the danger is that they might persuade themselves that the best way to protect the country is to support whoever has at least a façade of legitimacy, particularly if it aligns with their political preferences.
- voted Trump because they believe the constitution protects us from his worst impulses; would support constitution over Trump
- voted Trump and would shred the constitution if they had the opportunity to
I think it’s hard to say how many are in each camp. My fear is many tell themselves they are in the first, but will actually end up in the second under the correct manufactured crisis.
But the stats and polling would need to go into a lot more detail than what you quoted to distinguish.
