Upload
Login or register

Deeticky

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:3/29/2010
Last Login:9/28/2016
Stats
Comment Ranking:#12936
Highest Content Rank:#4157
Highest Comment Rank:#416
Content Thumbs: 2398 total,  2750 ,  352
Comment Thumbs: 8934 total,  10107 ,  1173
Content Level Progress: 96% (96/100)
Level 123 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 124 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 82% (82/100)
Level 286 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor → Level 287 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor
Subscribers:0
Content Views:111757
Times Content Favorited:163 times
Total Comments Made:2587
FJ Points:1070
Favorite Tags: lol (8) | troll (5) | chan (3) | Four (3) | anonymous (2) | black (2) | Christianity (2) | comic (2) | forever (2) | murder (2)

latest user's comments

#125 - 1: I think as it stands right now, only a very small portion d…  [+] (4 replies) 07/26/2015 on -_-' 0
#128 - ByeliVolk (07/26/2015) [-]
Depends on how you look at it. If there was a Second Civil war you would have to admit there would be a majority of the people wanting to secede from the United States to do so just like the first one. The second point is that the soldiers aboard are probably not going to be willing to attack and kill possible family members and would try to sabotage a majority of the missions. NATO countries would try to sell to the Rebels while sending them old military surplus if there was any and after the Civil War would strike and gain control of the land. Also if a Nuke was involved it would possibly launch WW3 because of retaliation effect if used which would be the last thing we would want.
User avatar
#130 - Deeticky (07/27/2015) [-]
1: A second Civil War could happen many different ways. I suppose we can't know for sure exactly how many people would have to want to secede in order for it to actually happen.
2: Civil wars happen all over the world. While soldiers being ordered to fight their own countrymen is always hard, it hasn't stopped governmental forces from winning civil wars in the past. I will say, we would probably see a number of southerners desert the military, but I think northern recruits would make up for it.
3: I don't think NATO would be likely to aid with the rebels in a Second Civil War in any way. First, Article 5 of the Nato treaty requires all member states to come to the aid of any other member state which is subject to an armed attack. If they did not help the USA, they would be breaking the treaty, which in the current state of global affairs, would be a very bad thing to do. I don't see why NATO would try and strike to gain control of the land. None of the current NATO governments seem particularly expansionist.
4: Yes, launching nuclear weapons always carries the potential to start WW3. However, in this case, I think it would be unlikely. The rebels would have no State allies. Both WW1 and WW2 took place between 2 groups of allied countries (Allied Powers vs. Central Powers in WW1, and the Allies vs. the Axis in WW2). I'll say it again, the Rebels would have no allies. Even the USA's rivals, like China, are to economically interconnected with the US to justify supporting the rebels.
#131 - ByeliVolk (07/27/2015) [-]
Civil wars do happen in the world all the time but usually in third world / developing countries, they very rarely ever happen in modern first world countries and a forced conscription as known as the Draft would have many negative consequences that would result in a backlash and lowering the popularity of current holding president in term at that time and would be more infamous then Zachary Taylor. I know of maybe one country that would sell to the South Rebels in the case of it happening and that would be the French for they really do not give a shit since they have sold to our enemies before they will sell to them again and they would repeat their sells like the did in the First American Civil War. The Rebels would have allies but it would be in countries that oppose us or no longer care for us. China would definitely do it and so would Russia if it meant they could claim American Soil.

You bring up good points but what I am pointing out here is that in the current situation if a Civil War was to break out now in modern times the amount of casualties would be high and the amount of backlash and problems would be too high.

Your second point I think I want to point out is that unless you put out a forceful Draft the idea of making up enough recruits to replace defectors would be astronomical. And to win a war that you enemy has forcefully captured your assets that you have garnered and use the same tech as you it becomes hard to field enough assets to cover the deficit. Also the same State in the past would be the most valuable state again in the case of the Secession which is Virgina since it has closet proximity to the Capital and fastest access to the leader.
User avatar
#132 - Deeticky (07/27/2015) [-]
In the event of another Civil War, I think the draft would not be as unpopular as you think. The reason for this is that the rebels would be an immediate threat to the American people and would be actively trying to take over American land. During WW2, the draft was not especially unpopular due to the fact that soldiers viewed themselves as defending America against the Japanese and the Nazis. The Vietnam War, which saw an extremely unpopular draft, was not a defensive war. Our soldiers were not being viewed as defending America in that war. Instead, people just saw young men getting shipped off to die in a far away land.

I will say that I would not be surprised if China and Russia sold weapons to both the U.S. government and the rebels. Both of those countries have historically been very willing to make money off of others' wars (much like the U.S.). However, I don't see any basis to assume that either China or Russia would be interested in trying to take U.S. territory for themselves. First, both China and Russia are located on the other side of the planet. It would be extremely difficult for either country to transport the sheer volume of troops and supplies across the Pacific Ocean required to conquer America. Second, both China and Russia have their own local territorial disputes already. I think if they were to gain any territory from a U.S. civil war, it would only be within their own continents. Third, the U.S. has nukes stationed all over the world, which makes invasion an extremely bad idea. If either China or Russia were to invade, they could probably count on being nuked at some point.

Also, what are you referring to when you say France has sold to our enemies before? I'm not talking about the previous Civil War, because that was before NATO. If the French government were to do that openly nowadays, it would be a breach of the NATO treaty like I mentioned before.

I think it is important to point out that while the rebels would have many of the same assets as the U.S. government, they would be missing a very important piece. The Navy. The U.S. has a massive navy. The rebels would quickly see their ports blockaded and would be subject to airstrikes and landing parties from the sea.

I will definitely say that I agree with you in terms of the potential for casualties. They would definitely be massive and catastrophic for both sides.
#95 - Like the other posters said, no one is trying to ban the flag.…  [+] (2 replies) 07/26/2015 on -_-' +1
#98 - anon (07/26/2015) [-]
No one is trying to ban the flag?
User avatar
#126 - Deeticky (07/26/2015) [-]
No one is legitimately trying. I suppose there are probably a few people who want to see it legally banned, but nobody important is listening to them. Even the vast majority of people who protested the Confederate Flag recently only wanted to see it removed from the SC State House.
#93 - I know, right? The fact that it includes a picture of a man wh…  [+] (2 replies) 07/26/2015 on -_-' 0
#104 - anon (07/26/2015) [-]
"In sustaining the claim of Johnson to the perpetual service of Casor, the court also gave judicial sanction to the right of free Negroes to own slaves of their own race. In a 1916 article, John H. Russell wrote "Indeed <b>no earlier record, to our knowledge, has been found of judicial support given to slavery in Virginia except as a punishment for a crime.</b>"
User avatar
#127 - Deeticky (07/26/2015) [-]
Interesting quotes, but I need you to cite the sources if I am to evaluate them.
#91 - 1: You're making the assumption that all those military bases …  [+] (6 replies) 07/26/2015 on -_-' 0
#108 - anon (07/26/2015) [-]
1) You're making the assumption that only a small portion of the population would support seceding from the North. If that wasn't the case, then who would the military bases in the South support, their friends and families, or the people who want to kill their friends and families?
2) Who would rush to kill people in the South in order to keep them under the control of the Federal government?
3) NATO wouldn't likely get involved in a US civil war.
4) If the Southern rebels got control of 1 nuclear weapon (of the many in the South which are manned by Southerners), the North would be forced to abandon reconquering the South.
User avatar
#125 - Deeticky (07/26/2015) [-]
1: I think as it stands right now, only a very small portion does support Southern rebellion.
2: The President and military high command would order soldiers stationed abroad to come back to the U.S. to fight the rebels. That's pretty straightforward.
3: Depends. For one thing, NATO has invested interest in helping the U.S. maintain the status quo. The U.S.A.'s massive military is one of the things that makes NATO so powerful. In addition, I think most NATO countries would relish the opportunity to place the U.S. in their debt by helping with the war effort.
4: I will say that yes, if the rebels gained control of nukes, it would make things a lot harder for the North. However, the North still has plenty of Nukes of its own, as well as plenty of submarines carrying nuclear missiles. Mutually Assured Destruction would still be at play, and I think that neither the South nor the North wants to see the entire country become a nuclear wasteland.
5: You're forgetting about the DEATH STAR.
#128 - ByeliVolk (07/26/2015) [-]
Depends on how you look at it. If there was a Second Civil war you would have to admit there would be a majority of the people wanting to secede from the United States to do so just like the first one. The second point is that the soldiers aboard are probably not going to be willing to attack and kill possible family members and would try to sabotage a majority of the missions. NATO countries would try to sell to the Rebels while sending them old military surplus if there was any and after the Civil War would strike and gain control of the land. Also if a Nuke was involved it would possibly launch WW3 because of retaliation effect if used which would be the last thing we would want.
User avatar
#130 - Deeticky (07/27/2015) [-]
1: A second Civil War could happen many different ways. I suppose we can't know for sure exactly how many people would have to want to secede in order for it to actually happen.
2: Civil wars happen all over the world. While soldiers being ordered to fight their own countrymen is always hard, it hasn't stopped governmental forces from winning civil wars in the past. I will say, we would probably see a number of southerners desert the military, but I think northern recruits would make up for it.
3: I don't think NATO would be likely to aid with the rebels in a Second Civil War in any way. First, Article 5 of the Nato treaty requires all member states to come to the aid of any other member state which is subject to an armed attack. If they did not help the USA, they would be breaking the treaty, which in the current state of global affairs, would be a very bad thing to do. I don't see why NATO would try and strike to gain control of the land. None of the current NATO governments seem particularly expansionist.
4: Yes, launching nuclear weapons always carries the potential to start WW3. However, in this case, I think it would be unlikely. The rebels would have no State allies. Both WW1 and WW2 took place between 2 groups of allied countries (Allied Powers vs. Central Powers in WW1, and the Allies vs. the Axis in WW2). I'll say it again, the Rebels would have no allies. Even the USA's rivals, like China, are to economically interconnected with the US to justify supporting the rebels.
#131 - ByeliVolk (07/27/2015) [-]
Civil wars do happen in the world all the time but usually in third world / developing countries, they very rarely ever happen in modern first world countries and a forced conscription as known as the Draft would have many negative consequences that would result in a backlash and lowering the popularity of current holding president in term at that time and would be more infamous then Zachary Taylor. I know of maybe one country that would sell to the South Rebels in the case of it happening and that would be the French for they really do not give a shit since they have sold to our enemies before they will sell to them again and they would repeat their sells like the did in the First American Civil War. The Rebels would have allies but it would be in countries that oppose us or no longer care for us. China would definitely do it and so would Russia if it meant they could claim American Soil.

You bring up good points but what I am pointing out here is that in the current situation if a Civil War was to break out now in modern times the amount of casualties would be high and the amount of backlash and problems would be too high.

Your second point I think I want to point out is that unless you put out a forceful Draft the idea of making up enough recruits to replace defectors would be astronomical. And to win a war that you enemy has forcefully captured your assets that you have garnered and use the same tech as you it becomes hard to field enough assets to cover the deficit. Also the same State in the past would be the most valuable state again in the case of the Secession which is Virgina since it has closet proximity to the Capital and fastest access to the leader.
User avatar
#132 - Deeticky (07/27/2015) [-]
In the event of another Civil War, I think the draft would not be as unpopular as you think. The reason for this is that the rebels would be an immediate threat to the American people and would be actively trying to take over American land. During WW2, the draft was not especially unpopular due to the fact that soldiers viewed themselves as defending America against the Japanese and the Nazis. The Vietnam War, which saw an extremely unpopular draft, was not a defensive war. Our soldiers were not being viewed as defending America in that war. Instead, people just saw young men getting shipped off to die in a far away land.

I will say that I would not be surprised if China and Russia sold weapons to both the U.S. government and the rebels. Both of those countries have historically been very willing to make money off of others' wars (much like the U.S.). However, I don't see any basis to assume that either China or Russia would be interested in trying to take U.S. territory for themselves. First, both China and Russia are located on the other side of the planet. It would be extremely difficult for either country to transport the sheer volume of troops and supplies across the Pacific Ocean required to conquer America. Second, both China and Russia have their own local territorial disputes already. I think if they were to gain any territory from a U.S. civil war, it would only be within their own continents. Third, the U.S. has nukes stationed all over the world, which makes invasion an extremely bad idea. If either China or Russia were to invade, they could probably count on being nuked at some point.

Also, what are you referring to when you say France has sold to our enemies before? I'm not talking about the previous Civil War, because that was before NATO. If the French government were to do that openly nowadays, it would be a breach of the NATO treaty like I mentioned before.

I think it is important to point out that while the rebels would have many of the same assets as the U.S. government, they would be missing a very important piece. The Navy. The U.S. has a massive navy. The rebels would quickly see their ports blockaded and would be subject to airstrikes and landing parties from the sea.

I will definitely say that I agree with you in terms of the potential for casualties. They would definitely be massive and catastrophic for both sides.