What happens when a nuclear power has a civil war?

World leaders must all be asking themselves this question right now. This has never happened, but now looks likely in the US. What does the world do about this? Sit by, watch, and wait for total nuclear annihilation? Pick a side, take part, and... same result? What do you think they're planning right now?

Not much. It's not like the Soviet Union's disintegration led to literal disintegration.

When looking at what happened during the Soviet Unions clampdowns on dissident subnations and during the various coups and unrest of the dissolution of the Soviet Union itself it seemed that one side dominated so much that the nukes never really became an issue beyond the concern that several nuclear weapons went missing (although due to their mechanisms they are all likely useless now as certain key components will have radioactive decay). So from the only historical example and some more thought I would argue that a nuclear power cannot descend into a sufficient level of civil war that the nuclear weapons would become an issue. The sheer amount of power one of the sides will have ensure the unrest will be quick and decisive.

>>34633 The soviet union was a one party collapse. Which leads to nukes being sold and disappearing. Different problems. Brazil, Slovenia, and Hungary are already backing Trump's claim to victory.

Trump will back down soon enough, he's a fat New Yorker with no fans among intelligence or military brass. He's just dragging it out in order to build a narrative. After he concedes, he'll start a channel where he will have an enormous audience and immense and unrestrained sway over politics while making boatloads of cash.

>>34636 >Brazil, Slovenia, and Hungary Amazing superpower team you got there. The question comes down to why the US would nuke something in the first place and whether enough important people think irreparably destroying a huge chunk of any economy is worthwhile, especially during this recession. The most peaceful scenario has the secret service dragging out a crying orange man (can't beat the spooks at the regime change business). The most dangerous is a repeat of the BLM chimpouts only now it's police/nat guard against Qultists.

>>34638 >Amazing superpower team you got there. Are you mad because no country is supporting Biden's claim to victory yet?

>>34640 >no country https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-elections-anne-hidalgo-a4f71db8bab46c4dbc00bf02fe5ef3c1 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/foreign-leaders-offer-well-wishes-to-joe-biden-and-kamala-harris-after-projected-win/ Sorry everyone, we gotta end the world, some old fart took the other old fart's job.

Turkey has had nukes and a far more tense political situation than present-day US for years. It turns out that when you get down to it, nuclear war is too great of a risk for most people to push the button. that said Americans are uniquely stupid so who knows that the hell they'll do. >>34637 correct. >>34634 for a while in the former USSR there wasn't really a "winner". The country was de facto run by mafias for a few years. also, to the people trying to turn this thread into another American political soykafflinging episode: shut the fuarrrk up, take it to twitter.

>>34643 True enough. The thing with nukes is that they're supposed to be deterrents and difficult to use, unless you believe the red button meme. And the name of the game is profit, which is hard to make in a nuclear hellscape.

>>34643 This. I'm no expert on nuclear weapons or history but we've reached a stage where they are a defensive weapon. Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine. There have been many cases (especially Cold War) when an officer was supposed to fire and refused or almost did by mistake. Luckily, it seems they understand the gravity of the situation despite how detached they are from the violence.

what happens when two gun owners have a fight?

If I recall, Mao said it was acceptable to nuke reactionaries in your own country.

>>34643 >Turkey has had nukes Debunked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

>>34646 >Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine. That doesn't work when one side has nothing to lose. The left has made lists and will round up Trump voters for extermination. There's no reason left not to use nukes in this scenario.

>>34650 (You)

>>34650 "The left" has no power in the US right now. It's currently all in the hands of the right-wing Democrats and the right-wing Republicans, two wholly-owned subsidiaries of Wall Street. Don't let the ruling class gaslight you.

>>34650 Consider avoiding relative terms like 'leftist' on international forums if you wish for actual discussion. I believe most non-Americans consider the majority of the American Democratic Party to be center-right wing neo-liberals (with a handful of central and demsoc outliers). Also note that nuclear weapons are not precision weapons.

>>34651 every reply is "Stop spamming" because I show you a list of links validating my points Thanks lainchan Enjoy your nuclear war

>>34655 https://twitter.com/McAdooGordon/status/1324903754760671233

>>34649 https://fas.org/blogs/security/2019/10/nukes-out-of-turkey/ apparently they are under US command. Anyway other countries such as NK have nukes and have not used them because they are more useful as bargaining chips than weapons >>34650 u are very smart

>>34655 Thanks. Nuclear war is cyberpunk.

>>34658 >>34657 >u are very smart smart enough to debunk you

>>34659 oh no I've been DEBUNKED how can I live without my bunk???

Israel has nukes what do you say aboutit

>>34662 Israel PM just congratulated Biden on his victory even though the sitting president hasn't conceeded. I'd call that choosing a side.

>>34663 Almost every allied leader has congratulated Biden by now, the results are in and its pretty clear that Biden has won regardless of whether Trump has conceded.

>>34643 The people didn't win but someone won the various conflicts that arose. You are absolutely right that the country was practically in a state of collapse and ran by Mafias but importantly it never stayed in any protracted civil war state with more than one of the factions having either nuclear weapons or equal power. In places like Chechyna there were no nuclear weapons up for grabs and the various coup attempts ended quickly.

>>34660 >he doesn't care yet he still keeps replying back to tell us how he doesn't care

>>34631 >This has never happened, but now looks likely in the US. Lol. Only in your dreams, Adolf.

>>34665 >The people didn't win but someone won the various conflicts that arose. well that's the thing, it seems to me like for a while there nobody was really in charge even though there also wasn't a civil war. I'm certainly not an expert on the subject, maybe there were political struggles that I am not aware of.

>>34653 >"The left" has no power in the US right now. It's currently all in the hands of the right-wing Democrats and the right-wing Republicans, two wholly-owned subsidiaries of Wall Street. Don't let the ruling class gaslight you. The fact that people are talking about civil war is a strong indication that one side is actually not controlled by the ruling class and they are desperate to fix that. They've been going crazy trying to fix that for the last 4 years really and now is the last best chance they have. >>34643 >apparently they are under US command. That's correct. Half of NATO has american nukes stationed on their land. Even if you could overrun a base and get the activation codes for the bombs, you're quickly going to develop bigger problem than a civil war by dicking on the US like that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing

I like that some people think the US would think about going to war with itself. Only the extremes on both sides are interested in weakening a country that is already struggling. And those extremes are mostly fat old men and skinny old ladies on the right and women from urban areas and soyboys on the left.Majority of the country is center left or right and they just picked a side in an election. I doubt majority of the country really even cared who won. But they will care if some assholes try to start something. Biden will enter the white house in January and he will control the military. The US isn't going to go to war over some orange fatass losing to an even older center left guy. At least until Biden dies in office, if he does, and all those rednecks lose their minds over having a black Indian woman as their President.

>>34631 >but now looks likely in the US Big nope. Social media has radicalized you. Consider leaving it for a while.

>>34690 >Only the extremes on both sides are interested in weakening a country that is already struggling. And those extremes are mostly... There are plenty of young people trapped in the mainstream media/culture bubble who have been radicalized against Trump and can't deal with the psychological pain of everyone around them screeching about it for another 4 years. All the people the media has incited to riot for BLM could just as easily be incited to riot against Trump. The only risk of a "civil war" is if Trump legitimately wins despite the media currently claiming the opposite and then the self righteous BLM/antfa/useful idiot crowds try to march on the white house or something dumb. But even then that would just be a Tienanmen Square situation. To get a real civil war you need a split in the military or citizens armed and organized enough to take on the military. Many individuals like Trump, as an entertaining troll who actually didn't do a bad job on the economy or foreign policy. But like you say, nobody is going to be willing to die for that guy.

>>34696 >To get a real civil war you need a split in the military or citizens armed and organized enough to take on the military. Well, yes. As insane as people get over the culture wars, nobody on either side is going to pick up a gun and start shooting at tanks and professional soldiers over it.

>>34696 You do realize there are also many people who grew up in republican/right bubbles? If what you say is true, it would have to also then be true of the opposite. There are many ways for people to grow up and the opposite of one lifestyle is almost always a reality. Have you forgotten the tea party during Obama's administration? Do you not realize that during his administration many right wing people believed and openly talked about him wanting to become a dictator? Not to mention false accusations being flung at him by right wing media? People love to be the victim. Everyone is always the victim, on both sides of the aisle. Within the past 100 years in the US, which side has caused more death from domestic terrorism? I hate to attack the conservative side like this but I find it sad that people really don't understand BLM and Antifa. You really sound like you were spoon fed this idea that they are the greatest threat to the US, but that's exactly the point. Create an enemy out of someone so others don't look at them as humans, or at least not good humans. Makes it easier for someone in power to convince you that you have to stop them before they come for you. That's how you get people to make the first move. And in this case, that would be people on the right feeling violated. As if something was "stolen" from them, to use the words of someone else. To put it as clear as possible what my view is. The US will not have a civil war. But I do worry about right wing terrorism. That is far more likely and I would even put money on it happening.

>>34689 >The fact that people are talking about civil war is a strong indication that one side is actually not controlled by the ruling class and they are desperate to fix that. weird that that side has been scrambling to do everything they can to cut taxes for the wealthy, boost the stock market, and open up more oil for exploitation then...

>>34697 civil wars tend to happen when the troops themselves are ideologically divided.

>>34702 >But I do worry about right wing terrorism. That is far more likely and I would even put money on it happening. You mean MORE of it happening and yes they will. They already do car attacks, mass shootings, there was that thing in Michigan, etc.

I wonder who would benefit from lots of chaos, division, and civil unrest in America and the West in general?And I wonder who has a long history of fomenting such things with well-organized, well-funded propaganda campaigns disguised as grass-roots unrest? Any ideas?

>>34711 it's the Mexicans, trying to get back at us for the Mexican-American war.

>>34713 Nah, Lain clearly means Canada. They still won't reopen the border, suspicious isn't it? Obviously waiting for 45 to concede defeat before they do.

>>34711 The CIA and the wealthy of course. One needs merely look at the history of wealthy American businessmen and their lackeys in the CIA to notice that this cross-racial coalition of class interests will do whatever it needs to do to keep the worker divided.

>>34702 >You do realize there are also many people who grew up in republican/right bubbles? Not to the same degree. All mainstream news channels, tv programs, news websites, social media have pushed nothing but anti-Trump propaganda for 4 years. The Democrat bubble is far bigger and more powerful. >Within the past 100 years in the US, which side has caused more death from domestic terrorism? You tell me. The only right wing terrorist I can remember is the "screw your optics i'm going in" dude who shot up a synagogue a few years ago. >I find it sad that people really don't understand BLM and Antifa. I understand that in a single day they have burned, looted and murdered more than any "right wing" terrorists ever have in America. Don't just tell me what the leftist dominated media and culture told you to believe. Show me some evidence of all these domestic terrorist incidents you think have happened.

>>34718 What's happening is too dangerous and out of control to be explained by elites trying to maintain the status quo. I think >>34711 is implying that this is foreign state(s) trying to seriously fuarrrk up America's ability to operate as a global power.

>>34720 >I understand that in a single day they have burned, looted and murdered more than any "right wing" terrorists ever have in America. I don't have a problem with what BLM/Antifa/etc did. I laughed my ass off when they burned that police station to the ground. And seeing the Daughters of the Confederacy building in glorious, glorious flames made my inner General Sherman smile for days. I'm just surprised that the ruling class isn't taking protesters' actions seriously these days. After just ten days of violence in 1968 after MLK was murdered, even Lyndon "Butcher" Johnson recognized that things must change for the better for the black working class. Politicians nowadays are even dumber and/or more stubborn than fifty years ago.

>>34656 Twitter is not a reliable source for anything. If you get your info from twitter you're a moron.

>>34725 The ruling class isn't objecting to the protests because the protestors are doing exactly what the ruling class wants them to do.

>>34720 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_church_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_boogaloo_killings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffersontown_Kroger_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilroy_Garlic_Festival_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_El_Paso_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poway_synagogue_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlottesville_car_attack There's a lot and probably more, but I had to filter out for the ones in recent memory and in the US. It's hard to pretend this is a saintly trend. >>34725 BLM/Antifa is basically a corporate sponsored movement. It's why the media's on their side and the ruling class isn't that concerned with them. Let's not pretend they give a soykaf about societal change. It's just answering rightist idpol with more idpol.

>[Mutually assured destruction] doesn't work when one side has nothing to lose. Yeah. I guess they're suigenocidal. >The left has made lists and will round up Trump voters for extermination. I'm as sure that we have, as I am that you've made similar lists of communists, Joe. >There's no reason left not to use nukes in this scenario. Assuming you're right about the previous points.. Yeah, let's do it! Let's extinguish the small chance you have at navigating the system, and surviving, like many jews, users, and other anti-social elements did, during the holocaust. Let's take that large, but not total, chance of you all dying, and make it nigh-certain. I'll be in my mineshaft, anyway, with all the rest of the productive folk, prodigiously breeding till the soykaf you lobbed at the fan clears up. With a few good men, good planning, and God on our side, damruskies won't stand a chance: Mr. President, we cannot allow, a mine-shaft gap!

>>34720 >All mainstream news channels, tv programs, news websites, social media have pushed nothing but anti-Trump propaganda for 4 years. yeah except for Fox News, the only local newspaper in my town, and countless facebook groups. >I understand that in a single day they have burned, looted and murdered more than any "right wing" terrorists ever have in America. you mean any individual right-wing terrorist or any individual right-wing terrorist attack? the GAO found 62 incidents where those vaguely associated to the right wing killed people in terrorist attacks between 2001 and 2017, with a total of 106 victims. None for lefties. The most people killed in one of those attacks was 9. The GAO, by the way, is the office charged with supplying non-biased information to congress. They are famously neutral. >>34721 okay but lets be honest, they're just exploiting a long trend of decay.

>>34731 >BLM/Antifa is basically a corporate sponsored movement. This is true in the sense that corporations have seized on the symbolism as an advertising strategy, and they have been trendy among San Francisco anarcho-liberals, but a lot of antifa cells and street medics operate either with their personal funds or from small donations. A lot of the 'old guard' in antifa and BLM participated in Occupy. I think there is a *big* divide between the BLM that is allowed to control the narrative and the BLM that are actually on the streets, for the most part. Just my two cents.

>>34731 >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_church_shooting racist white guy posts manifesto, shoots some blacks Good >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_boogaloo_killings far-right anti-government neo-nazis Not really clear what their politics is but ok. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffersontown_Kroger_shooting mixed race guy is angry at his black ex-wife and kills some black people Not really terrorism since it was a personal grudge not a political agenda. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilroy_Garlic_Festival_shooting Iranian guy kills white metropolitans for spoiling his country side lol no I'm not accepting that one. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_El_Paso_shooting racist white guy posts manifesto and shoots some latinos Good. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poway_synagogue_shooting Actual neo-nazi posts manifesto and shoots up a synagogue Good. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlottesville_car_attack Nope. If you turn up to someone else's political march and start fighting people then it's not terrorism when they fight back. But you've got a few good ones in there. I appreciate the effort. That's nothing compared to what left wing terrorists have done though. Here's something to balance out your perspective. https://counter-currents.com/2020/10/the-terrorist-left-of-the-1970s/

Go ahead and take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism Scroll down on that page and you will see the amount of terrorist activity the right commits compared to the left. Within the last ten years on that list you can see the uptick in right-wing terrorist activity. These aren't things you can logically ignore by trying to paint random groups of people on the left as evil/terrorists. Look at the people that surround you in the right. They say doing these massacres are because they are already being "attacked" by the left which actually only means they had people disagree with their viewpoint. In reality they just built this fake image of the world that doesn't exist around them. All in order to give them enough reason to kill people who they simply don't agree with. Just look at the OKC bombing. The right is not innocent by a long shot. The idea of the US having another civil war is monumentally stupid. When they had the first they had very few enemies. Nowadays, the only thing keeping the rest of the world from truly invading the US is the fact that as a whole it is dangerous. If the US breaks into factions the rest of the world will use its soil as a war games playground. Neither side of US citizens would win at the end of that war. And if you think nukes are a deterrent from that they aren't. Because more then likely both sides of the civil war would ask for allies in their pursuit to winning. The US would open their borders to other military's willingly.

>>34737 There's been an ongoing campaign to smear any resistance as being secretly funded by the neocon-spiracy, never with any evidence. If you've seen these activists operating on the ground or talked to any of them for five minutes, it's obvious they don't have any money.

>>34748 >pious followers being poor means church has no money and bishops do it for free

>>34747 >Within the last ten years on that list you can see the uptick in right-wing terrorist activity. You're the one who originally said "in the last 100 years..." >>34702 not me. Even if you only want to look at the last 10 years now, you can't just pretend BLM and antifa don't exist. >Scroll down on that page and you will see the amount of terrorist activity the right commits compared to the left. No. >1969–1975 Attacks by The Weather Underground. >1973–1975 SLA activities and the 1974 shootout by Donald DeFreeze[30] >1978–1999 Unabomber killings by Ted Kaczynski[31] >1980–1985 Attacks by the Jewish Defense League. Years worth of lefty terrorist attacks are hidden under the first few lines. And then every "right wing" attack has a separate line. This article is carefully designed to mislead people into reaching the same conclusion you did. I understand you're emotionally invested in the subject but try to apply a bit more critical thinking when dealing with blatant propaganda like this.

>>34750 There's just no substantial proof. Most of these groups seem like leaderless gaggles anyway, there aren't any "bishops". If the corporate conspiracy really is funding all these anti-capitalist groups, the money isn't being spent very efficiently or conspicuously.

>>34752 >Ted Kaczynski >left

>>34754 Movements get a self-running effect once they reach critical mass. There are guide books on how to merely incite movements and then let them run on their own for viral marketing to save on cost. Religion is also a good example how ideas once introduced survive on their own in remote places for centuries. Theres also the fact that the donation money went into funds that stated in fine print thanks donation is going to our own pockets. Its pretty clear these instigators rode the wave to make bank. The problem with movements lacking clear leaders is anyone can hijack them.

>>34756 >Theres also the fact No, there is a lot of conjecture though.

>>34757 Link has been posted here 20x times already. Youre either blind, lazy or in denial by this point.

Can we stop with the who's-who partisan crap and get back to the larger point about civil war? I doubt a civil war would happen at this point in the US, but if it did I can see it going one of two ways: the first and imo most likely is that the US military basically destroys any resistance day one and things go back to normal save for the bitter losers who larp that they actually won a-la the confederates. The second possibility is that things really do escalate, in which case a rival power like Russia or China will seize the opportunity and take things over. Either way, in end, the people with power are going to be the winners. The gap between some randos with guns vs real military is way bigger than most people think.

>>34759 most military are not going to start killing people in their own country though. no matter how badly the military wants that to be achievable, it just wont happen.

While the political scene in America is a shambles due to years and years of relentless agitation propaganda from various sources, the American military leaders are a bulwark of stability and sanity. There isn't going to be any all-out civil war in America, and any smaller conflicts would be quickly put down. Enough of this fear-mongering.

>>34760 You wanna bet? Shit like that happens all the time in other countries.

>>34764 most soldiers dont even want to kill their enemies who are shooting at them. [0] and you think they will kill their own countrymen just because someone tells them to? imagine how wrecked the average soldiers psyche and morale would be if he was taking part in destroying his own nation and his own people. i mean united states soldiers still get PTSD from killing "mud people" who they've been brainwashed into hating and not even seeing as human for atleast a decade. its the entire reason US military has been going into automated robotics and drones. humans are unreliable and inefficient at killing eachother in war. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Killing

>>34759 >>34760 more important it seems these days the military is the only part of the country that has any competent people in charge. I bet if there is a civil war it will be an Egypt-like scenario, partisan groups will fight for a little bit before the military steps in and enforces order. >>34770 well, this is true, however partisan conflicts only occur because when someone has drank the kool-aid deep enough they stop thinking like humans.

>>34756 you are correct that there are lots of people who cashed in on the movement for their own personal gain, but you are incorrect that the movement was started and sustained by shadowy interests. The reason people riot is because they have literally nothing better to do. That is the only reason people riot, ever.

>>34770 So then the US could use robots.

>>34773 the infrastructure isnt there

>>34646 I have read a good deal about nukes, and from what I have gathered, it seems like the whole idea of nukes comes in two flavors: 1. Countries who use them to supplement conventional forces or use them as a no-step-on-snek tactic (i.e. israel, north korea, india/paki and USSR during the cold war since they could not take on NATO without instakill cheat codes) 2. Countries who boast such unimaginable power that no country would overtly go to war with them (USA/CHINA/RUSSIA). The way they are used has changed, and even what constitutes a "weapon" in the international sense has changed. Some would consider the warheads themselves to be the "weapon" while others count the rocket assemblies and MIRVs as weapons, so the actual numbers are still just as made up as covid cases. The United States in its most recent nuclear posture review established that it would be downsizing its arsenal in favor of smaller but more precise nukes which have a higher probability of use (we wont end the world, just hundreds of your countries largest cities), russia basically worked around treaties to produce ultra specific doomsday weapons like tsunami torpedoes, and china gives fuarrrk all about the world and was working on increasing the fallout for nukes for some reason. People in charge of nukes believe it or not are incredibly professional and stable minded (unless your country is india lel). >>34631 In the case of the fall of the USSR, people just ran off for personal profit when it came to military equipment, why use it when you can make more money in a day than you ever could in 10 lifetimes. There was significant international intervention to prevent this from happening with nuclear technology. >>34647 The analogy would be better stated as what happens if two grenade owners have a fight. Nuclear weapons are indiscriminate. I personally think that there is a low risk of nukes being used in the US if there was a civil war. Despite what the media tells the world, only a small portion of Americans are ideologically motivated by politics to the point of taking up arms for a perceived war. Also most members of the military are not likely to side with a politician who tells them to attack their friends and family.

>>34776 >1. Countries who use them to supplement conventional forces or use them as a no-step-on-snek tactic (i.e. israel, north korea, india/paki and USSR during the cold war since they could not take on NATO without instakill cheat codes) This is why I unironically advocate the total replacement of my country's conventional military with nuclear ICBMs. We ought to make it crystal clear to the world that we're not going to go abroad in search of monsters to slay, US style, but also that we're not going to tolerate foreign bootprints on our soil.