The only thing I disagree with here is the assumption that the military off today is *red*.
Its not. At the top its Blueish and at the lower levels it is *very* blue - we even have JO's that are open Marxists.
Structural racism is taken as a given. The Chief of Naval Personnel wants to bring photos back to promotion boards because when just looking at records, too many whites are being promoted.
Thank you for the article, as always great food for thought.
I think on this though that it would in real life get much more complicated real quick.
For example I think even red tribe governors would only let mob ruled anarchy go that far before stomping it out, even if they are initially sympathetic to what's happening. Because more important than red or blue is who has the power and who hasn't and keeping it that way. And a mob can also turn against you fairly easily as history has shown many times.
But if it really came to a civil war type confrontation the red and blue thing would probably go out the window fairly soon. Because I don't think those tribes are quite as united as they currently may appear and that new more regional tribes would emerge or for example the Haves vs Have-nots.
The other thing is the part about the red tribe owning more guns than the blue tribe. While that may be true I don't think it matters at all. Acquiring guns if needed would not be that difficult if group of people were really determined. Go loot a big store, you think the low salary clerk is going to stop a group of looters?
But even so, I for example own a pretty good sized arsenal of many calibers with a lot of ammo to go with it because I simply enjoy shooting. And I'd like to think that if I was attacked I would bravely stand my ground and turn into John McClane.
But the honest truth is that I simply don't know what I would do in reality. Maybe I would fight or maybe run or maybe freeze. As Tyson aptly put it: "everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth". And unless you have served in actual combat you probably won't know either and I would say that a lot of people would turn out to be pretty shitty fighters regardless how many guns they own.
It's certainly not the guns that make a good soldier and it does not come naturally to most people but typically requires a lot of training.
And even if you did serve in combat but now are home and have kids that you are trying to protect. You might think twice before you engage an enemy whether you really want to do that. Ideals are one thing, the direct life of your children on the line another.
And if you think the best course would be to fight in order to protect your kids just think who you would first take out, the guy with all the guns shooting at you or the guy who says “yes sir, no sir, he went that-a-way sir”.
Lastly, forget the tanks, if really push came to shove the government would simply use drones to bomb the daylights out of a resisting compound like they do overseas. Why? Because not only is there nothing any of us can really do against it but also because whoever controls the drone does not have to look in the eyes of who they're bombing. If you see the POV footage of drone strikes, the operators are usually cool as cucumbers like surgeons doing exactly what they are told to do.
And unlike the Taliban who by now are pretty used to get their stuff blown up we by far are not. Most of us have a lot more to lose than we think and it would become very apparent when I stand in front of the smoldering remains of my house and my beloved pickup truck provided I still can stand.
You know how most bar fights don't look nearly as cool as they do in movies? A modern day civil war in the US would probably look pretty pathetic and ugly too and not at all how some folks imagine it.
And oh look, we're currently experiencing "Blues play progressive as fast and aggressive as possible."
Well, who knows, maybe "It is a moral imperative that we be allowed to talk to your toddler about masturbation in secret" *isn't* as aggressive as possible.
The only thing I disagree with here is the assumption that the military off today is *red*.
Its not. At the top its Blueish and at the lower levels it is *very* blue - we even have JO's that are open Marxists.
Structural racism is taken as a given. The Chief of Naval Personnel wants to bring photos back to promotion boards because when just looking at records, too many whites are being promoted.
Thank you for the article, as always great food for thought.
I think on this though that it would in real life get much more complicated real quick.
For example I think even red tribe governors would only let mob ruled anarchy go that far before stomping it out, even if they are initially sympathetic to what's happening. Because more important than red or blue is who has the power and who hasn't and keeping it that way. And a mob can also turn against you fairly easily as history has shown many times.
But if it really came to a civil war type confrontation the red and blue thing would probably go out the window fairly soon. Because I don't think those tribes are quite as united as they currently may appear and that new more regional tribes would emerge or for example the Haves vs Have-nots.
The other thing is the part about the red tribe owning more guns than the blue tribe. While that may be true I don't think it matters at all. Acquiring guns if needed would not be that difficult if group of people were really determined. Go loot a big store, you think the low salary clerk is going to stop a group of looters?
But even so, I for example own a pretty good sized arsenal of many calibers with a lot of ammo to go with it because I simply enjoy shooting. And I'd like to think that if I was attacked I would bravely stand my ground and turn into John McClane.
But the honest truth is that I simply don't know what I would do in reality. Maybe I would fight or maybe run or maybe freeze. As Tyson aptly put it: "everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth". And unless you have served in actual combat you probably won't know either and I would say that a lot of people would turn out to be pretty shitty fighters regardless how many guns they own.
It's certainly not the guns that make a good soldier and it does not come naturally to most people but typically requires a lot of training.
And even if you did serve in combat but now are home and have kids that you are trying to protect. You might think twice before you engage an enemy whether you really want to do that. Ideals are one thing, the direct life of your children on the line another.
And if you think the best course would be to fight in order to protect your kids just think who you would first take out, the guy with all the guns shooting at you or the guy who says “yes sir, no sir, he went that-a-way sir”.
Lastly, forget the tanks, if really push came to shove the government would simply use drones to bomb the daylights out of a resisting compound like they do overseas. Why? Because not only is there nothing any of us can really do against it but also because whoever controls the drone does not have to look in the eyes of who they're bombing. If you see the POV footage of drone strikes, the operators are usually cool as cucumbers like surgeons doing exactly what they are told to do.
And unlike the Taliban who by now are pretty used to get their stuff blown up we by far are not. Most of us have a lot more to lose than we think and it would become very apparent when I stand in front of the smoldering remains of my house and my beloved pickup truck provided I still can stand.
You know how most bar fights don't look nearly as cool as they do in movies? A modern day civil war in the US would probably look pretty pathetic and ugly too and not at all how some folks imagine it.
I just hope I don't have to see it.
BJ --
Your explicitly declared assumption in the above game-theory analysis is that "... the Red team has all the guns."
Newsflash!! ... they don't 🔫 🤪
🏴☠️
And oh look, we're currently experiencing "Blues play progressive as fast and aggressive as possible."
Well, who knows, maybe "It is a moral imperative that we be allowed to talk to your toddler about masturbation in secret" *isn't* as aggressive as possible.