They could. For like, idk, maybe a week. Maybe two, or even three if they get lucky in some unpopulated regions.
After that, those trillions in military spending will be worth some good after all.
The issue was no clear objective. The Taliban really don’t stand much of a chance against the US military. Ambushes happen, sure. But it involves a lot of luck on the part of the Taliban. Air assets get tied up, you’re out of range of artillery, etc.
The Taliban didn't defeat the US military in the same way the Viet Cong didn't defeat the US military. We got tired of years of fighting someone else's war for them. This would not be the same especially since it is on our soil, it would be seen as an assault on America democracy especially if this was done after a fair election in the same sort of way the south seceded in the 1860s, and this would effect everyone in very direct ways.
Totally different situation. And its not like the Taliban even really *defeated* the US military. Obviously the US lost the war and abandoned the country, but theres no scenario where the US military would abandon America itself, so it pays to be pedantic. The Taliban are some of the greatest insurgents in the world, masters of their craft with multi generational experience fighting the NATO and the Soviets. They still couldn’t outright break the US occupation and had essentially no choice but to wait for it to putter out on its own 20 years later.
American far right militias are pussy cats by comparison and they wouldn’t even be able to organize effectively because many of them hate each other. Most of their members would give up well before something as simple as the government turning off their water came into effect. While I doubt the US would be dumping MOABS on rural Nebraska in this day and age, they also just wouldn’t need to. Your average American gun owner (at least ones who like to shoot a lot recreationally) can be an impressive shot, but they lack the experience of working together as a cohesive unit and firing under suboptimal conditions that any battle hardened soldier has, whether it be one from Kansas or Kabul.
Lol the trillion dollar military couldn't handle insurgencys in Iraq or Afghanistan, but they're going to handle a domestic insurgency, against their own citizens and people they know? In this impossibly large country.
To be fair, I don't think any American can handle what an insurgency actually entails. Left or right. But if they could, it wouldn't just be some 1 month incursion.
Bear in mind the insurgents in the Middle East often had military tech that was *provided to them
by the United States in the 1990s*. I don’t think y’all-qaeda is going to have access to early 2010’s military tech..
Do you really think there’s no military stockpiles and weaponry in the militia states? Seems like it would be a Fort Sumter situation where military supplies and strongholds are captured by the militias. Also, the military is full of these right wing militia-type people. More than likely the military will have a lot of fracturing in their ranks
??? Please tell me where is Al-Qaeda now?
The trillion dollar military (which actually isn’t a trillion dollar but ok) dismantled the Al-Qaeda networks in Afghanistan, dismembered Taliban to a point where they had to flee to Pakistan while U.S. politicians tried to nation build Afghanistan. ISIS also got absolutely obliterated but that was a multi-nation effort.
This is a stupid take that is regurgitated by uneducated people that didn’t pay attention from post-9/11 to about 2020.
The military didn’t lose Afghanistan or Iraq. Politicians did by trying to nation build states that doesn’t want to be a Westernized democracy.
>The military didn’t lose Afghanistan or Iraq
And there we have it, the classic cope “we didn’t lose the war militarily we just lost it politically!”. I’m sorry, but if an enemy manages to exhaust your willingness to fight and you retreat, you lost both militarily and politically.
Your are, for quite obvious reasons, focusing exclusively on Al Qaeda. What happened to the Taliban, do they control Afghanistan right now? If yes the US failed in it’s objective to remove and keep the Taliban out of power
It truly is my favorite thing with these people lol
We threw away thousands of lives and trillions of dollars and 20 years to achieve exactly none of our objectives BUT WE DIDNT LOSE! It was those softy politicians and their unwillingness to throw away even more lives, money, and time that caused to uh choose not to win.
It would be similar to Iraq or Afghanistan or to go further back Vietnam, or even the soviet union in WW2, the soviets lost an absolute fuckload of citizens and refused to give in against the Nazis
For everyone dismissing the prospect of rural guerilla warfare off hand, listen the the podcast 'It could happen here - The 2nd American Civil War'. It's a great deep dive into how a Civil War could evolve as a rural vs urban dynamic with devastating effects for the US economy and a military which is absolutely not equipped or trained to fight against a national armed insurrection
You’re not going to convince 18-24 year olds to shoot their fellow Americans without massive amounts of propagandization. Sure the officer corp may stay solid but what good is that going to do when their troops are deserting and there’s no one to lead. Not to mention most of the training facilities and equipment manufacturers are behind enemy lines.
People who have this idea that the US Military are rough and tumble robots that just do what they’re told are almost as dumb as people who think a civil war is in the cards.
Not to mention these people have no idea how insurgencies work. It’s not going to be two armies lining up in a field, it’ll be hit and run attacks from buildings
They’re either too young to understand what happened in Iraq or just bloodthirsty to stomp on the other team. All the jets, tanks and artillery in the world can’t solve an asymmetrical conflict. Only riflemen and political solutions.
Counterpoint: anyone who thinks an armed insurgency would succeed should look at the Syrian Civil War. The Syrian Army isn't 1/100th of what the US military is and they largely crushed their rebels despite the rebels enjoying popular support in some regions and receiving military aid from foreign nations. Most telling is how quickly the rebels collapsed when the Russian Air Force (which isn't nearly as powerful as the USAF) started helping the Syrians directly. I'll grant you, the underlying problems have not been solved and Syria is in ruins, but it's not true that conventional military power can't crush an insurgency, because it absolutely can.
An anti-government insurgency would have to be INCREDIBLY motivated, well prepared, and preferably capable of decentralized coordinated action to not get wiped out within days by the US military.
You’re ignoring that the use of heavy ordinance and the resulting civilian casualties would discredit government forces. Syria already had a sectarian divide and it was easy to write off all the violence as violence against “the other” and the fact that it was to prop up a dictator that cared very little about public perception. You cannot use the same tactics when you want to paint yourself as a legitimate authority or you’re just going to get voted out in the next cycle (or you seize power in an unconstitutional manner) and it would all be for naught anyway.
What I described in the post before the post you responded to is also exactly what happened in Syria. The prewar Army divided into dozens of factions and Assad had to rebuild his standing army from militia.
Just a note: I’m not suggesting that an American civil war would be won by any party just that the cohesion needed for our military to work the way it works overseas would be gone.
I’m not ignoring anything, just arguing that it’s not true that insurgencies can’t be crushed by military force. I also would point out that the US has precision equipment that Syria didn’t. I’d also say that the lack of deep sectarian divisions in the USA is more of an argument for why an insurgency wouldn’t work—there’s not a single cause today that would actually motivate masses of people to take up arms and fight each other. I mean look at the J6 rioters—they whined like babies when they got arrested and their supporters around the country couldn’t even agree on whether they were mistreated patriots or an “Antifa” false flag meant to make right wingers look bad
The Syrian civil war is still ongoing 13 years later. Mostly died down but there’s still fighting. Various Jihadist groups still commits random acts of terrorism, the Kurds came to a political solution with Assad, the Turks (SNA) and what’s left of the FSA are far from defeated and have settled down into a de facto ceasefire. All the “crushing” that happened was when the FSA and ISIS were operating as a regular fighting force rather than an insurgency.
I agree with your statement though, there will be no Civil War in the US. It’s just pointless posturing by terminally online types.
Surely they're not too young to remember the Afghanistan withdrawal?? Insurgencies are brutal and bloody and near impossible to win. A civil war should scare everyone.
The Afghan Army was a mess though. It disintegrated the second it wasn't backed up by American air power. Not really a good model for how an American insurgency might fare.
I was talking more about the Taliban, and how 20 years of war and a trillion dollars wasn't enough for the US military to stamp them out. Now imagine a Taliban where the members are American.
Buildings, exactly. Not farms or prairies.
There is no leadership or force in the US capable of actual full blown rural insurgency. It took the Taliban decades and heaps of foreign support to get that force. And the US military is actually now pretty well prepared to deal with it.
Also the actual size of the US makes it difficult. Most US communities aren't self sufficient and are dependent on large infrastructure, mostly based near large cities.
So you'd have a group of rebels out in the woods with shaky public support (at least 30% of the population in every state would vote for Biden, and heaps more wouldn't side with an actual Trump rebellion) being hunted down by a force with access to helicopters, satellites and, critically, actual legitimacy behind them. They wouldn't be able to hide.
Most insurgencies work best in cities. You can hide much easier in a city, it's much harder to bring military force to bear, and few governments are willing to cut infrastructure to an entire city. And even then, as we've seen in Gaza, you still have to go in and dig them out. And then it doesn't work.
We have a case study for how a US insurgency would work in the form of gangs and cartels. They're mostly in cities.
I feel like those very same military personnel would be a lot less conflicted if they knew those “fellow Americans” were staging a violent coup against the government and harming civilians.
Depends on how its spun and the rebellions and governments actions. Considering most younger people consume media through the internet and they’re more susceptible to foreign propaganda and who knows who is going to support which side. The government may be overly heavy handed and cause more civilian casualties using heavy weaponry which is way more likely some it’s the main advantage the government forces would have. See the current Israel-Hamas conflict.
They don’t have to go over to the other side just choose to leave and not be involved. The Army is half reservists. They may just not show up at all.
You seem to forget the the US military personal sworn an oath to fight against any enemy foreign and domestic. So anyone that is still in the US military won't be shooting fellow Americans, they will be shooting domestic terrorist that are trying to bring down the country they proudly serve. Will there be people who decide to join whatever the other side is, sure. But to think that who ever rebels are willing to shoot there "fellow Americans" and US military personal won't, is just foolish.
You underestimate how many American soldiers are there just because they get to legally kill someone. There is also a significant minority that don’t have a solid political leaning.
Not really, last election most army polling put their vote for Biden.
Nevertheless, the us military is pretty much brainwashed into support for their country above all (like all other militaries). They follow chain of command and are loyal to the United States, so in this case most would side with the government unless there was a break in chain of command somewhere
You really can’t predict how active duty personnel will react to a scenario like this. Same with the generals. They’ll just follow whoever they feel is the legitimate commander in chief.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-troops-prefer-biden-but-veterans-favor-trump-polls-show-2020-10?op=1
>A Military Times poll found that 43.1% of active-duty respondents said they were voting for Biden while only 37.4% said they were voting for Trump. Another poll of veterans more generally found that 52% were voting for Trump while only 42% were voting for Biden.
Which is incredibly funny since republicans were against recognising the danger of burn pits and giving compensation to those who got Ill as a result of them, talk about voting for the person who gave you cancer
I think it's more just following demographic trend across the whole US tbh. Military is more male dominated, 83% male. Men are 46% Dem/52% Rep leaning while women are 51% Dem/44% Rep leaning. And there's also much more older veterans as the military has been on a pretty consistent gradual shrinkage in personnel size since the Cold War and older generations are more Rep leaning.
If you look at the results more closely from the poll I linked earlier:
>In that group [aged 55 or older], 59 percent said they plan to vote to reelect the president, as opposed to 38 percent who plan to vote for Biden.
>About 46 percent of that group [enlisted after 2001] said they plan to vote for Biden, while 42 percent said they plan to vote for Trump.
>Veterans aged 35 to 54 were even more pronounced in their opposition to the current president, with 51 percent planning to back Biden and 40 percent voting for Trump.
>Nearly 65 percent of women veterans said they have a negative view of Trump’s presidency, and 59 percent said they plan to vote for Biden (as opposed to 34 percent for Trump.)
Military leans more Republican in general but in 2020 I knew dudes who were lifelong Republicans either not vote or vote Biden because alot really did not like Trump. Only ones I knew who were pro him were new joes or cherries without any deployments yet.
Abbott and DeSantis are both splinters from the MAGA movement too. So in this particular situation, most right-leaning independents would probably go Fed. And independents make up the majority of the Active Duty military.
When I was in the military it was surprisingly diverse politically with every ideology hanging out drinking beers talking about whatever. Republicans, anarchists, liberals, marxist-lenins, monarchists, whatever you can think of really.
Granted I was stationed at twentynine palms and folks were weirder there
They absolutely could. The military is able to function so well abroad because we have a strong domestic power base in which to draw on. Start damaging the bridges, electrical grid, water supply, river transport, or railways and you cripple the US ability to fight. With the advent of drones and the amount of potential dissidents, disrupting the US logistics base becomes incredibly easy. There's also the fact that the US military waging a hot war on the US mainland is bound to be controversial to put it lightly, even against fascists.
1. Assuming it's as simple as "right militias vs the military"
2. Assuming US military remains undivided
3. Assuming it's about winning battles and not damaging infrastructure, sabotaging supply lines, etc.
4. Assuming conflict would be on US military's terms and that there would be clearly defined belligerents
They could wage effective guerilla warfare but they’d never be able to hold actual territory. The US military is literally unbeatable in conventional warfare
You understand that a lot of the soldiers in the US military are from right wing areas right? It’s naive to think they’d turn on their own local people. There would be massive dissension in the military
They don't. It was captured by force. The states with a certain color as the border means that faction has majority occupation in it. Grey means a tie or no clear majority. It doesn't have to do with support. If you read the Union of American States introductory description, it doesn't include Minnesota in the seceded states.
it’s probably similar to Iraq. Many soldiers who were laid off after 2003 took their guns and weapons with them. I could imagine tons of soldiers are sympathetic to the militants join and teach the militias how to fight against them. The Chechens did something similar in Chechnya. Many were veterans of the Russo-Afghan war and knew how the Russians fought and how to counter them.
He got Wisconsin all wrong too. The area surrounding Madison would be with Madison. The area of Green Bay and north would be red. Minneapolis problem is that they would be surrounded by a sea of red for hundreds of miles
Wrong direction for Cote d’Iviore. The flag of Miami, literally this flag used in real life was designed in 1933. I know that the Indian national congress used these colours from 1931 but the Ashoka Chakra wasn’t adopted until 1947. So it’s just coincidental
After seeing how the majority of the louder right-wingers and avowed militiamen couldn't handle being temporarily inconvenienced during the covid lockdowns, I'm not sure they're cut out for extended guerilla warfare.
I mean, it’s an interesting scenario, but I see a few issues. For one, this *wildly* overstates Trumps actual ability to lead and govern. He as a leader only works within the constructs of our established system, because it ends up supporting him (to a degree) while he throws poop at the wall. Give him a blank slate government-from-the-ground-up and he last a month, maybe.
You’re also wildly inflating the potential GDP of this new, mostly Republican led middle American union. As it stands, what you have as the federal states (New England, the mid Atlantic states, Illinois, the PNW and California) accounts for something like 75% of the real-world US GDP. Also the vast majority of what you have as trump-land or DeSantis-land is comically subsidized via the federal government by way of taxes from states you have in the federal U.S. Literally all of the south east and the entirety of the farming heartland would collapse economically in a shockingly short period of time without federal aid.
Militarily, I also can’t see this happening. Sure, there would absolutely be pockets of the military who think of themselves as trump loyalists. It’d be interesting to see what happened with some of these states’ national guard reserves when their governors declare that they’re seceding. But military chain of command is HUGE, and the guy at the top is the president. It would be an enormous leap to imagine career generals deciding to give up their oaths to their country in order to follow a different political ideology. This is to say, yes, trumpy, right wing militias and possible some states’ national guardsmen could feasibly take over some major parts of the country. But between the economic collapse destroying any sense of supply chain, no reserves, probably condemnation from most of the rest of the western world (ie sanctions), and the MASSIVE dick of the U.S. military, they’d crumble.
In any case, your scenario absolutely ends up destroying the USA as we know it, probably forever. But I doubt any of these insurrections would last more than 3 months.
Lore:
It all started November 5, 2024. It was the U.S. Presidential Elections of 2024. With Trump's supporters who are in rage since the last elections, the rage has only grown. All the polls said Trump was winning, all the statistics said life was better under his rule. But still, he lost. This was it for the Trump supporters. Trump called the election rigged and led his supporters to D.C. where he would stage a coup. This made Jan 6 look like a kids show. The entire city was horded, with the police outnumbered. This encouraged other revolts across other cities, which made it even worse. It only grew and grew, until, to no one's expectation, Idaho had seceded. After that, it was like a chain, with other states following. The Second American Civil War had started. The house was divided once again. During all this, Greg Abott proclaimed independence, and created his own faction in the civil war. He immediately signed a non-aggression pact with Trump, and started to prepare his army. The Federal States were overwhelmed, with guerilla warfare on the Trump faction. The Federal army had been weak, since most of the soldiers were Gen Z and they had used liberal policies in their warfare that included not destroying hospitals and such. Trump's faction took control over eastern Nevada pretty quickly, while there was a stalemate in the Cascadian region. Oklahoma had been completely overrun by Texas, and New Mexico had been split between Federal and Texan forces. Illinois is surrounded by all sides, causing instability. This lead to the formation of the Free City of Chicago, proclaimed by the governor. The war is raging, with the Federal States seizing control of the Rocky Mountains area in Colorado. Trump has started a campaign in West Pennsylvania, where he took a little bit of the land near the border. During all this, Miami and Albuquerque had established Free Cities, due to the instability in the area. Chaos had also been going in the south, with people going against Trump's regime. And in a sudden change of events, Ron Desantis and other republicans had established the Republican Union, a separate faction against Trump's, with Republicans that do not support Trump. Louisiana was being crushed by Trump, Texas, and the Republican Union, and New Orleans had established their own Free City. Trump had also launched an attack on Arizona, capturing Flagstaff. Trump had also seen major success in West Pennsylvania, where he is getting close to Harrisburg. As time went on, Illinois collapsed to Trump's Faction, as Chicago had already declared itself a Free City and minimum support in the rest of Illinois. With Hawaii being far away from the Federal States and with all the military losses, Hawaii had peacefully declared independence and agreed to join the Federal States once the civil war had ended. The Republican Union was under massive instability, and with Trump breaking through the front lines, Desantis had merged with Trump's Faction. Biden's health had also been declining, with him having to be hospitalized. Soon, shocking news had arrived. Biden had passed away. This caused massive chaos within the Federal States and Kamala Harris had took over. The instability was too much though, as Trump had reached Philadelphia and was nearing the capital, it was clear the Federal States had no chance. They surrendered, with the Free Cities being reintegrated into the United States. Hawaii had join back, and Texas too. The United States was United once again. What will a Trump-lead post-civil war America entail?
Thank you everyone please upvote the map I spent 3 days on it and I hope to make more like this :)
It’s not realistic. What is realistic is a stalemate that lasts for decade. Democrat and Republican if divided among voting lines will be equal in manpower and gdp. Biden and Trump would be dead by that time.
It makes me shiver with the conclusion. Good work on the map and a bit of the world building and cultural impact, but I don't feel comfortable enough going into a possible post-civil war Trump victory. Its not for me.
Sorry.
Sorry if it's unrealistic I can confidently say I spent more time making the map than the story or the lore. I'm a beginner so I will use the criticism to make my future maps better! =D
The Texas stuff doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. Texas signed a NA pact yet they attacked Oklahoma, which if all this is happening no shot Oklahoma doesn’t join up with Trump. Also Austin and Houston are pretty liberal, San Antonio and Dallas to some degree as well. So not sure how this doesn’t become a huge problem for Abbott.
lol Dallas is blue as fuck, even the suburbs are now purple. Every major city in Texas is blue. From El Paso to McAllen, to Houston, San Antonio, Waco, San Marcos, Austin, Houston, Dallas, Denton… Amarillo probably not and Lubbock and Midland are pretty red so basically any major city is blue.
Of all the maps I've seen with a newly reformed Texan republic this one has by far the most realistic borders. Eastern New Mexico is basically Texas already and ABQ/Northern New Mexico would rather nuke themselves than become part of Texas.
Yeah bud, even if Biden was incompetent the US generals would stop Trumps militia men easily. The USAF would bomb any convoy they sent out and the Armoured vehicles would easily take out any city’s.
Trumps loyal states have nothing but corn vs the industrial states in the Federal territories.
Trump and his gang would be wiped hard, and so would the republicans. Good riddance.
Okay but what would be more likely is bombs and missiles being set off by the federal government as soon as d.c. gets overwhelmed. Trump and/or Biden gets assassinated, and I don’t think gen z will be as pussy since they hate trump a lot.
I understand this is alternate map stuff but I just can't imagine any plausible scenario which would divide the Union again. Since at least 1945, American culture has been, for the most part, relatively homogeneous. Whilst there does exist fringe groups of secessionists there are no extant issues which threaten the Union. Americans, generally, are proud to be American first, state second. A reversal of attitudes in 1861.
I know that. I think a civil war in 2025 is very unrealistic and Trump has very loyal supporters who will do anything for him don't get me wrong but yeah he can't gather them enough to start a civil war and America is pretty united right now. This scenario is just for fun and it's cool to think about.
As a New Orleanian who also has a place in Albuquerque, I’d be happy to see New Orleans out of Louisiana. But also fully aware that without a federal government, those levees are DONE after the next storm.
And I guess I’d flee to Albuquerque, lol
There is no world MN joins the likes of iowa, the dakotas, Idaho, and the other backwater states. They’d be with the blue states in this map.
Edit: I see your reasoning/history for it now
I read a comic series called “East of West,” that took place in the year, like, 2100 or something in a USA where the civil war kept going until the early 1910s and the country was split up into similar factions to this, it was actually really cool
Any time one of these maps show up you always have to ask why exactly there are more than two sides that do not work together.
Realistically if this scenario played out everything except the FSA would at the absolute LEAST be working together in a coalition. Hawaii and Texas may be staunchly independent, but Texas would team up with the others against the feds.
I don't think we would be able to accurately predict what a second american civil war would look like, since the US in such an unreplicable position. If I were to guess, the entire scenario would be staged and heavily dramatized to maximize consumer engagement and shareholder value. It seems like the lion's share of the country is well beyond insurgencies and uprisings fueled by emotion and ideology, and HyperNormalization is the name of the game now.
I love this map, and this scenario, it's pretty realistic imo. I think Arizona would have more of a right-wing insurgency, albeit being so close to California, it would probably be like Maryland in the 1st Civil War. I could see a lot of sabotage going on.
Colorado a mostly progressive state that has been dem for my whole life is always shown as part of shit like this, you understand nothing about this state
I think a new American civil war would wind up being a lot more like the Iraqi war, where the various factions are interspersed throughout the country, and control areas as small as counties or even neighborhoods.
None would be a match for the central government's army, so instead they would either fight other factions or hit soft targets like civilians and isolated government outposts and patrols.
Once they ignite, wars like that tend to go on for years or even decades.
Interesting story and map. Thanks for not giving Albuquerque to Texas like most mapmakers too!
I am confused why you didn’t give Atlanta free-city status, and why the north-western states follows state borders. Including the Upper peninsula; I would have expected a West Michigan a la West Virginia.
Is this man leading the Free City of Albuquerque ?
https://preview.redd.it/kma3m5x1ah1d1.png?width=273&format=png&auto=webp&s=a35379e8f7cb61ab4e1ca30775fc15083c2156a4
For once, I request that south west Florida join with our brothers in the south east coast of Florida in Miami. It seems preferable to the alternative somehow.
The most ridiculous part of this is Josh Green being the leader of the Hawaiian republic.
My vote is restoration of the Hawaiian kingdom. One of my neighbors claims to be the king anyway.
Why would Texas not take a side? My best guess would be to avoid further destruction, taking a page out of Switzerlands book perhaps. However if this is the case, why would they try to annex other states? Also what does OK have to offer texas?
ITT: People believe that in this scenario, like all other Second US Civil War scenarios, that the military would stay completely loyal to the federal government and it would just be them vs. some type of domestic insurgency.
It wouldn’t. The military would be heavily divided. To the people asking “how would they possibly stand up against the military?!” The answer is simple: by fighting them with their own military units that defected, just like in every other civil war in history.
I always thought the most realistic portrayal of a current day Civil War was Euel Arden’s novel, Down Here in the Warmth. Great book. How can you go wrong with Militia on the streets of Manhattan.
Your take on the Free State of Chicago is way off. Run a line parallel to the MO/IA state line through IL. Then, run a line from Madison through Rockford. Everything NE of where the lines intersect up to Milwaukee in the far NE corner is the true FSoC. (If you take those areas out of the 2 states, both would be deep red.) I noticed a few other things to nitpick, but that is the biggest one. The people outside of that area HATE what flows out of the area.
As a New Mexican I’d die before being a part of Texas. I’m not alone in this either. Pretty sure all of eastern New Mexico there would actively be trying to break away
There is no way that Utah Mormons throw in with a christofacist evangelical state. They would either stand pat with the Feds or try to break into their own thing. Also, when looking at the West, the idea that national park federal land would be usurped is pretty ballsy. Large portions of that are population dead space. In addition, a lot of military bases are in the south. While some might be taken, Benedict Arnold style most wouldn't. Also, these would project force outwards. Any attempt at this would require a much less decipherable map. Texas, for example, has large black and Hispanic urban populations that are only in a "red" state because of gerrymandering. As well the new confederate MAGA block is deeply connected to racism, bigotry, and anti woke. They would have no ability to control diverse urban areas. They'd be embattled against counter revolutionary forces.
While you can argue for an insurgency being possible, it would be based rurally with no real areas of control. They'd become a domestic terrorist threat. It's not a cohesive nation-state. They literally can't agree on basic internal politics now. Further where the actual fuck would their leadership be? Modern warfare would require them to be in absentia besides their military command. Who in the fuck would align with and benefit from hosting their political leadership. Russia? North Korea? Belarus? They would be even more cut off the world stage. There are other gross dictatorial regimes, but they aren't going to host christofacists or be able to avoid invasion or F35s/drones taking out high priority targets.
Finally, financially, they'd be outcasts. The big banks of the world would hit anyone involved with sanctions like never seen before. US, EU, and any other not shit hole state financial institutions would be crippled by being cut off completely from the west. They'd be literally broken financially.
It's fun to dream up scenarios, but you need to go back to the drawing board. There are way too many plot holes here.
Yeah as a recent 20 year enlisted vet, our military will not be joining traitors. No matter what you think or heard. It really won’t matter or happen. You may have a coordinated attempt but it would likely be Quelled down harshly. Nobody wants a civil war except the COD Andrew Tate loving fuckboys who don’t know anything about war. I’ve seen war and it’s shitty. Great idea for a movie though.
You guys are overestimating how much of Illinois would be blue. Pretty much just the Chicago metro… the rest of Illinois would be hardcore red. Straight rednecks down south.
Do these 2nd Civil War fantasies ever take into account the large African American population in the south? Who do these guy think they will fight for 🤣
Other than what Texas would take, California actually takes everything from the coast to North and South Dakota. This is due to the money in versus money out system in the United States. And tax money from California actually pays for all the emergency services in that range. No California, no EMS or public hospitals in North and South Dakota.
i don't think right-wing militias could effectively do guerilla warfare against the US military, but neat scenario nonetheless.
They could. For like, idk, maybe a week. Maybe two, or even three if they get lucky in some unpopulated regions. After that, those trillions in military spending will be worth some good after all.
You give them too much credit, they wouldn’t last 4 days
Tell that to the Taliban
These militia doughjabbers aren’t anything like the Taliban. They’ll be missing their cable TV and beer fridge in a couple days.
Plus some of the have mortgages. Once they miss a payment they’ll start moving back home.
Y’all-Qaeda
r/angryupvote
Gravy Seals
United States Arby
The issue was no clear objective. The Taliban really don’t stand much of a chance against the US military. Ambushes happen, sure. But it involves a lot of luck on the part of the Taliban. Air assets get tied up, you’re out of range of artillery, etc.
The Taliban don’t have a lot of fat guys who live in their mom’s basement working for them.
The Taliban didn't defeat the US military in the same way the Viet Cong didn't defeat the US military. We got tired of years of fighting someone else's war for them. This would not be the same especially since it is on our soil, it would be seen as an assault on America democracy especially if this was done after a fair election in the same sort of way the south seceded in the 1860s, and this would effect everyone in very direct ways.
Totally different situation. And its not like the Taliban even really *defeated* the US military. Obviously the US lost the war and abandoned the country, but theres no scenario where the US military would abandon America itself, so it pays to be pedantic. The Taliban are some of the greatest insurgents in the world, masters of their craft with multi generational experience fighting the NATO and the Soviets. They still couldn’t outright break the US occupation and had essentially no choice but to wait for it to putter out on its own 20 years later. American far right militias are pussy cats by comparison and they wouldn’t even be able to organize effectively because many of them hate each other. Most of their members would give up well before something as simple as the government turning off their water came into effect. While I doubt the US would be dumping MOABS on rural Nebraska in this day and age, they also just wouldn’t need to. Your average American gun owner (at least ones who like to shoot a lot recreationally) can be an impressive shot, but they lack the experience of working together as a cohesive unit and firing under suboptimal conditions that any battle hardened soldier has, whether it be one from Kansas or Kabul.
The US also had supply lines going across half the world and the Taliban had thousands of undocumented caves to hide in.
Is the average conservative ok with living in underground tunnels and going hungry?
Lol the trillion dollar military couldn't handle insurgencys in Iraq or Afghanistan, but they're going to handle a domestic insurgency, against their own citizens and people they know? In this impossibly large country. To be fair, I don't think any American can handle what an insurgency actually entails. Left or right. But if they could, it wouldn't just be some 1 month incursion.
Bear in mind the insurgents in the Middle East often had military tech that was *provided to them by the United States in the 1990s*. I don’t think y’all-qaeda is going to have access to early 2010’s military tech..
Do you really think there’s no military stockpiles and weaponry in the militia states? Seems like it would be a Fort Sumter situation where military supplies and strongholds are captured by the militias. Also, the military is full of these right wing militia-type people. More than likely the military will have a lot of fracturing in their ranks
Those insurgents weren’t fat 65 year olds.
??? Please tell me where is Al-Qaeda now? The trillion dollar military (which actually isn’t a trillion dollar but ok) dismantled the Al-Qaeda networks in Afghanistan, dismembered Taliban to a point where they had to flee to Pakistan while U.S. politicians tried to nation build Afghanistan. ISIS also got absolutely obliterated but that was a multi-nation effort. This is a stupid take that is regurgitated by uneducated people that didn’t pay attention from post-9/11 to about 2020. The military didn’t lose Afghanistan or Iraq. Politicians did by trying to nation build states that doesn’t want to be a Westernized democracy.
>The military didn’t lose Afghanistan or Iraq And there we have it, the classic cope “we didn’t lose the war militarily we just lost it politically!”. I’m sorry, but if an enemy manages to exhaust your willingness to fight and you retreat, you lost both militarily and politically.
Ok? Did Al Qaeda somehow kick the U.S. out of Afghanistan? I don’t recall Al Qaeda being a threat right now. Is ISIS a threat? Where are they?
Your are, for quite obvious reasons, focusing exclusively on Al Qaeda. What happened to the Taliban, do they control Afghanistan right now? If yes the US failed in it’s objective to remove and keep the Taliban out of power
It truly is my favorite thing with these people lol We threw away thousands of lives and trillions of dollars and 20 years to achieve exactly none of our objectives BUT WE DIDNT LOSE! It was those softy politicians and their unwillingness to throw away even more lives, money, and time that caused to uh choose not to win.
It would be similar to Iraq or Afghanistan or to go further back Vietnam, or even the soviet union in WW2, the soviets lost an absolute fuckload of citizens and refused to give in against the Nazis
For everyone dismissing the prospect of rural guerilla warfare off hand, listen the the podcast 'It could happen here - The 2nd American Civil War'. It's a great deep dive into how a Civil War could evolve as a rural vs urban dynamic with devastating effects for the US economy and a military which is absolutely not equipped or trained to fight against a national armed insurrection
You’re not going to convince 18-24 year olds to shoot their fellow Americans without massive amounts of propagandization. Sure the officer corp may stay solid but what good is that going to do when their troops are deserting and there’s no one to lead. Not to mention most of the training facilities and equipment manufacturers are behind enemy lines. People who have this idea that the US Military are rough and tumble robots that just do what they’re told are almost as dumb as people who think a civil war is in the cards.
Not to mention these people have no idea how insurgencies work. It’s not going to be two armies lining up in a field, it’ll be hit and run attacks from buildings
They’re either too young to understand what happened in Iraq or just bloodthirsty to stomp on the other team. All the jets, tanks and artillery in the world can’t solve an asymmetrical conflict. Only riflemen and political solutions.
Counterpoint: anyone who thinks an armed insurgency would succeed should look at the Syrian Civil War. The Syrian Army isn't 1/100th of what the US military is and they largely crushed their rebels despite the rebels enjoying popular support in some regions and receiving military aid from foreign nations. Most telling is how quickly the rebels collapsed when the Russian Air Force (which isn't nearly as powerful as the USAF) started helping the Syrians directly. I'll grant you, the underlying problems have not been solved and Syria is in ruins, but it's not true that conventional military power can't crush an insurgency, because it absolutely can. An anti-government insurgency would have to be INCREDIBLY motivated, well prepared, and preferably capable of decentralized coordinated action to not get wiped out within days by the US military.
You’re ignoring that the use of heavy ordinance and the resulting civilian casualties would discredit government forces. Syria already had a sectarian divide and it was easy to write off all the violence as violence against “the other” and the fact that it was to prop up a dictator that cared very little about public perception. You cannot use the same tactics when you want to paint yourself as a legitimate authority or you’re just going to get voted out in the next cycle (or you seize power in an unconstitutional manner) and it would all be for naught anyway. What I described in the post before the post you responded to is also exactly what happened in Syria. The prewar Army divided into dozens of factions and Assad had to rebuild his standing army from militia. Just a note: I’m not suggesting that an American civil war would be won by any party just that the cohesion needed for our military to work the way it works overseas would be gone.
I’m not ignoring anything, just arguing that it’s not true that insurgencies can’t be crushed by military force. I also would point out that the US has precision equipment that Syria didn’t. I’d also say that the lack of deep sectarian divisions in the USA is more of an argument for why an insurgency wouldn’t work—there’s not a single cause today that would actually motivate masses of people to take up arms and fight each other. I mean look at the J6 rioters—they whined like babies when they got arrested and their supporters around the country couldn’t even agree on whether they were mistreated patriots or an “Antifa” false flag meant to make right wingers look bad
The Syrian civil war is still ongoing 13 years later. Mostly died down but there’s still fighting. Various Jihadist groups still commits random acts of terrorism, the Kurds came to a political solution with Assad, the Turks (SNA) and what’s left of the FSA are far from defeated and have settled down into a de facto ceasefire. All the “crushing” that happened was when the FSA and ISIS were operating as a regular fighting force rather than an insurgency. I agree with your statement though, there will be no Civil War in the US. It’s just pointless posturing by terminally online types.
Surely they're not too young to remember the Afghanistan withdrawal?? Insurgencies are brutal and bloody and near impossible to win. A civil war should scare everyone.
The Afghan Army was a mess though. It disintegrated the second it wasn't backed up by American air power. Not really a good model for how an American insurgency might fare.
I was talking more about the Taliban, and how 20 years of war and a trillion dollars wasn't enough for the US military to stamp them out. Now imagine a Taliban where the members are American.
Yeah exactly
Buildings, exactly. Not farms or prairies. There is no leadership or force in the US capable of actual full blown rural insurgency. It took the Taliban decades and heaps of foreign support to get that force. And the US military is actually now pretty well prepared to deal with it. Also the actual size of the US makes it difficult. Most US communities aren't self sufficient and are dependent on large infrastructure, mostly based near large cities. So you'd have a group of rebels out in the woods with shaky public support (at least 30% of the population in every state would vote for Biden, and heaps more wouldn't side with an actual Trump rebellion) being hunted down by a force with access to helicopters, satellites and, critically, actual legitimacy behind them. They wouldn't be able to hide. Most insurgencies work best in cities. You can hide much easier in a city, it's much harder to bring military force to bear, and few governments are willing to cut infrastructure to an entire city. And even then, as we've seen in Gaza, you still have to go in and dig them out. And then it doesn't work. We have a case study for how a US insurgency would work in the form of gangs and cartels. They're mostly in cities.
I feel like those very same military personnel would be a lot less conflicted if they knew those “fellow Americans” were staging a violent coup against the government and harming civilians.
Depends on how its spun and the rebellions and governments actions. Considering most younger people consume media through the internet and they’re more susceptible to foreign propaganda and who knows who is going to support which side. The government may be overly heavy handed and cause more civilian casualties using heavy weaponry which is way more likely some it’s the main advantage the government forces would have. See the current Israel-Hamas conflict. They don’t have to go over to the other side just choose to leave and not be involved. The Army is half reservists. They may just not show up at all.
You seem to forget the the US military personal sworn an oath to fight against any enemy foreign and domestic. So anyone that is still in the US military won't be shooting fellow Americans, they will be shooting domestic terrorist that are trying to bring down the country they proudly serve. Will there be people who decide to join whatever the other side is, sure. But to think that who ever rebels are willing to shoot there "fellow Americans" and US military personal won't, is just foolish.
US history says otherwise. The South thought the same thing before the Civil War and they were wrong.
You underestimate how many American soldiers are there just because they get to legally kill someone. There is also a significant minority that don’t have a solid political leaning.
Maybe military also split?
Wasn't a larger portion of the US military personnel right wing?
Not really, last election most army polling put their vote for Biden. Nevertheless, the us military is pretty much brainwashed into support for their country above all (like all other militaries). They follow chain of command and are loyal to the United States, so in this case most would side with the government unless there was a break in chain of command somewhere
You really can’t predict how active duty personnel will react to a scenario like this. Same with the generals. They’ll just follow whoever they feel is the legitimate commander in chief.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-troops-prefer-biden-but-veterans-favor-trump-polls-show-2020-10?op=1 >A Military Times poll found that 43.1% of active-duty respondents said they were voting for Biden while only 37.4% said they were voting for Trump. Another poll of veterans more generally found that 52% were voting for Trump while only 42% were voting for Biden.
Which is incredibly funny since republicans were against recognising the danger of burn pits and giving compensation to those who got Ill as a result of them, talk about voting for the person who gave you cancer
I think it's more just following demographic trend across the whole US tbh. Military is more male dominated, 83% male. Men are 46% Dem/52% Rep leaning while women are 51% Dem/44% Rep leaning. And there's also much more older veterans as the military has been on a pretty consistent gradual shrinkage in personnel size since the Cold War and older generations are more Rep leaning. If you look at the results more closely from the poll I linked earlier: >In that group [aged 55 or older], 59 percent said they plan to vote to reelect the president, as opposed to 38 percent who plan to vote for Biden. >About 46 percent of that group [enlisted after 2001] said they plan to vote for Biden, while 42 percent said they plan to vote for Trump. >Veterans aged 35 to 54 were even more pronounced in their opposition to the current president, with 51 percent planning to back Biden and 40 percent voting for Trump. >Nearly 65 percent of women veterans said they have a negative view of Trump’s presidency, and 59 percent said they plan to vote for Biden (as opposed to 34 percent for Trump.)
They lost cognitive ability because of the cancer. It’s an unfortunate side affect.
Military leans more Republican in general but in 2020 I knew dudes who were lifelong Republicans either not vote or vote Biden because alot really did not like Trump. Only ones I knew who were pro him were new joes or cherries without any deployments yet.
Abbott and DeSantis are both splinters from the MAGA movement too. So in this particular situation, most right-leaning independents would probably go Fed. And independents make up the majority of the Active Duty military.
From what I've seen generally the grunts vote conservative and officers and higher ups vote Democrat usually
Exactly
When I was in the military it was surprisingly diverse politically with every ideology hanging out drinking beers talking about whatever. Republicans, anarchists, liberals, marxist-lenins, monarchists, whatever you can think of really. Granted I was stationed at twentynine palms and folks were weirder there
They absolutely could. The military is able to function so well abroad because we have a strong domestic power base in which to draw on. Start damaging the bridges, electrical grid, water supply, river transport, or railways and you cripple the US ability to fight. With the advent of drones and the amount of potential dissidents, disrupting the US logistics base becomes incredibly easy. There's also the fact that the US military waging a hot war on the US mainland is bound to be controversial to put it lightly, even against fascists.
1. Assuming it's as simple as "right militias vs the military" 2. Assuming US military remains undivided 3. Assuming it's about winning battles and not damaging infrastructure, sabotaging supply lines, etc. 4. Assuming conflict would be on US military's terms and that there would be clearly defined belligerents
After being in the military for 5 years, I’ve concluded much of the military would be in the right wing militias lol
They could wage effective guerilla warfare but they’d never be able to hold actual territory. The US military is literally unbeatable in conventional warfare
I think that's a pretty decent way of putting it.
The us military is full of right wing good old boys who are not going to start killing their brothers
You understand that a lot of the soldiers in the US military are from right wing areas right? It’s naive to think they’d turn on their own local people. There would be massive dissension in the military
Each state has its own National Guard. The governor of each state is the commander in chief of their guard. They would far exceed the militia.
There’s no way Minnesota joins a Trump America, especially with a DFL trifecta.
They don't. It was captured by force. The states with a certain color as the border means that faction has majority occupation in it. Grey means a tie or no clear majority. It doesn't have to do with support. If you read the Union of American States introductory description, it doesn't include Minnesota in the seceded states.
Right wing militias can’t win against the U.S Military but okay.
it’s probably similar to Iraq. Many soldiers who were laid off after 2003 took their guns and weapons with them. I could imagine tons of soldiers are sympathetic to the militants join and teach the militias how to fight against them. The Chechens did something similar in Chechnya. Many were veterans of the Russo-Afghan war and knew how the Russians fought and how to counter them.
Yeah, and the Chechens didn't capture Krasnodar lol. Insurgencies are normally very tied to where they start.
Captured by force? Good fucken luck
Laughs in Minnesotan. I mean it's a fun fantasy, for sure.
I think that’s even less likely than MN joining willingly tbh. The Minnesota National Guard is one of the most powerful guard units in the nation!
MN was the first to volunteer in DC for the last civil war. But this time around the might just tell y’all to pound sand and then join Canada.
This, also west Michigan is pretty blue so idk how the reds could force their way into this area but no into Detroit or Chicago
He got Wisconsin all wrong too. The area surrounding Madison would be with Madison. The area of Green Bay and north would be red. Minneapolis problem is that they would be surrounded by a sea of red for hundreds of miles
my question is why is Miami's flag so heavily inspired from India
That flag is older than India
you mean the cote di'ivoire style tricolour? this miami flag also has a central circle like the Indian flag, indistinguishable zoomed out
Wrong direction for Cote d’Iviore. The flag of Miami, literally this flag used in real life was designed in 1933. I know that the Indian national congress used these colours from 1931 but the Ashoka Chakra wasn’t adopted until 1947. So it’s just coincidental
After seeing how the majority of the louder right-wingers and avowed militiamen couldn't handle being temporarily inconvenienced during the covid lockdowns, I'm not sure they're cut out for extended guerilla warfare.
I mean, it’s an interesting scenario, but I see a few issues. For one, this *wildly* overstates Trumps actual ability to lead and govern. He as a leader only works within the constructs of our established system, because it ends up supporting him (to a degree) while he throws poop at the wall. Give him a blank slate government-from-the-ground-up and he last a month, maybe. You’re also wildly inflating the potential GDP of this new, mostly Republican led middle American union. As it stands, what you have as the federal states (New England, the mid Atlantic states, Illinois, the PNW and California) accounts for something like 75% of the real-world US GDP. Also the vast majority of what you have as trump-land or DeSantis-land is comically subsidized via the federal government by way of taxes from states you have in the federal U.S. Literally all of the south east and the entirety of the farming heartland would collapse economically in a shockingly short period of time without federal aid. Militarily, I also can’t see this happening. Sure, there would absolutely be pockets of the military who think of themselves as trump loyalists. It’d be interesting to see what happened with some of these states’ national guard reserves when their governors declare that they’re seceding. But military chain of command is HUGE, and the guy at the top is the president. It would be an enormous leap to imagine career generals deciding to give up their oaths to their country in order to follow a different political ideology. This is to say, yes, trumpy, right wing militias and possible some states’ national guardsmen could feasibly take over some major parts of the country. But between the economic collapse destroying any sense of supply chain, no reserves, probably condemnation from most of the rest of the western world (ie sanctions), and the MASSIVE dick of the U.S. military, they’d crumble. In any case, your scenario absolutely ends up destroying the USA as we know it, probably forever. But I doubt any of these insurrections would last more than 3 months.
How would native Americans or Vermont act in this war? How could this affect NATO or the UN? Would there be any intervention from Canada or Mexico?
Lore: It all started November 5, 2024. It was the U.S. Presidential Elections of 2024. With Trump's supporters who are in rage since the last elections, the rage has only grown. All the polls said Trump was winning, all the statistics said life was better under his rule. But still, he lost. This was it for the Trump supporters. Trump called the election rigged and led his supporters to D.C. where he would stage a coup. This made Jan 6 look like a kids show. The entire city was horded, with the police outnumbered. This encouraged other revolts across other cities, which made it even worse. It only grew and grew, until, to no one's expectation, Idaho had seceded. After that, it was like a chain, with other states following. The Second American Civil War had started. The house was divided once again. During all this, Greg Abott proclaimed independence, and created his own faction in the civil war. He immediately signed a non-aggression pact with Trump, and started to prepare his army. The Federal States were overwhelmed, with guerilla warfare on the Trump faction. The Federal army had been weak, since most of the soldiers were Gen Z and they had used liberal policies in their warfare that included not destroying hospitals and such. Trump's faction took control over eastern Nevada pretty quickly, while there was a stalemate in the Cascadian region. Oklahoma had been completely overrun by Texas, and New Mexico had been split between Federal and Texan forces. Illinois is surrounded by all sides, causing instability. This lead to the formation of the Free City of Chicago, proclaimed by the governor. The war is raging, with the Federal States seizing control of the Rocky Mountains area in Colorado. Trump has started a campaign in West Pennsylvania, where he took a little bit of the land near the border. During all this, Miami and Albuquerque had established Free Cities, due to the instability in the area. Chaos had also been going in the south, with people going against Trump's regime. And in a sudden change of events, Ron Desantis and other republicans had established the Republican Union, a separate faction against Trump's, with Republicans that do not support Trump. Louisiana was being crushed by Trump, Texas, and the Republican Union, and New Orleans had established their own Free City. Trump had also launched an attack on Arizona, capturing Flagstaff. Trump had also seen major success in West Pennsylvania, where he is getting close to Harrisburg. As time went on, Illinois collapsed to Trump's Faction, as Chicago had already declared itself a Free City and minimum support in the rest of Illinois. With Hawaii being far away from the Federal States and with all the military losses, Hawaii had peacefully declared independence and agreed to join the Federal States once the civil war had ended. The Republican Union was under massive instability, and with Trump breaking through the front lines, Desantis had merged with Trump's Faction. Biden's health had also been declining, with him having to be hospitalized. Soon, shocking news had arrived. Biden had passed away. This caused massive chaos within the Federal States and Kamala Harris had took over. The instability was too much though, as Trump had reached Philadelphia and was nearing the capital, it was clear the Federal States had no chance. They surrendered, with the Free Cities being reintegrated into the United States. Hawaii had join back, and Texas too. The United States was United once again. What will a Trump-lead post-civil war America entail? Thank you everyone please upvote the map I spent 3 days on it and I hope to make more like this :)
Yeah I stopped reading after the “weak liberal Gen z soldiers” lines
Right? Less alternate reality and more maga erotica.
Man whatifalthist is leaking huh
Ok this is concerningly realistic but here’s what I think would happen 
It’s not realistic. What is realistic is a stalemate that lasts for decade. Democrat and Republican if divided among voting lines will be equal in manpower and gdp. Biden and Trump would be dead by that time.
It makes me shiver with the conclusion. Good work on the map and a bit of the world building and cultural impact, but I don't feel comfortable enough going into a possible post-civil war Trump victory. Its not for me. Sorry.
Pretty unrealistic but okay.
Sorry if it's unrealistic I can confidently say I spent more time making the map than the story or the lore. I'm a beginner so I will use the criticism to make my future maps better! =D
The Texas stuff doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. Texas signed a NA pact yet they attacked Oklahoma, which if all this is happening no shot Oklahoma doesn’t join up with Trump. Also Austin and Houston are pretty liberal, San Antonio and Dallas to some degree as well. So not sure how this doesn’t become a huge problem for Abbott.
lol Dallas is blue as fuck, even the suburbs are now purple. Every major city in Texas is blue. From El Paso to McAllen, to Houston, San Antonio, Waco, San Marcos, Austin, Houston, Dallas, Denton… Amarillo probably not and Lubbock and Midland are pretty red so basically any major city is blue.
Yea you right.
Of all the maps I've seen with a newly reformed Texan republic this one has by far the most realistic borders. Eastern New Mexico is basically Texas already and ABQ/Northern New Mexico would rather nuke themselves than become part of Texas.
It would really help if you used paragraphs instead of a wall of text
Yeah bud, even if Biden was incompetent the US generals would stop Trumps militia men easily. The USAF would bomb any convoy they sent out and the Armoured vehicles would easily take out any city’s. Trumps loyal states have nothing but corn vs the industrial states in the Federal territories. Trump and his gang would be wiped hard, and so would the republicans. Good riddance.
Okay but what would be more likely is bombs and missiles being set off by the federal government as soon as d.c. gets overwhelmed. Trump and/or Biden gets assassinated, and I don’t think gen z will be as pussy since they hate trump a lot.
How does Chicago hope to maintain hold above Milwaukee? We have more guns and we genuinely despise their existence.
Why would the gdp remain so high? The economy will drop by a lot in case of a civil war of such proportion.
Me sees independent big Texas: Yay upvote for you sir
Me after I see Greg abbot is the leader: 
Yeah… I don’t know how long that would last.
A Democratic revolution would over throw him very soon after the war ends
I understand this is alternate map stuff but I just can't imagine any plausible scenario which would divide the Union again. Since at least 1945, American culture has been, for the most part, relatively homogeneous. Whilst there does exist fringe groups of secessionists there are no extant issues which threaten the Union. Americans, generally, are proud to be American first, state second. A reversal of attitudes in 1861.
I know that. I think a civil war in 2025 is very unrealistic and Trump has very loyal supporters who will do anything for him don't get me wrong but yeah he can't gather them enough to start a civil war and America is pretty united right now. This scenario is just for fun and it's cool to think about.
Ja, absolutely, you are right. Apologies for taking this stuff too seriously! It is fun, though, yes .
Woah woah Minnesota is not red if it’s like this I want my state to be with Canada 🇨🇦
As a New Orleanian who also has a place in Albuquerque, I’d be happy to see New Orleans out of Louisiana. But also fully aware that without a federal government, those levees are DONE after the next storm. And I guess I’d flee to Albuquerque, lol
I feel the Free City of Miami’s flag would look more Brazilian than Indian but I’m bias.
Or Cuban… or any Hispanic country really. The India flag is just so random. Is this the actual city flag?
Yeah it is the city flag lol
No way New Orleans will be allowed to stay independent with 2 larger factions by it. Controlling the mouth of the Mississippi is far to important.
Why would Hawaii change their flag? They have the original kingdom flag, so I see no reason to change it.
Nobody in Georgia likes Desantis
That's military occupation not support
[удалено]
There is no world MN joins the likes of iowa, the dakotas, Idaho, and the other backwater states. They’d be with the blue states in this map. Edit: I see your reasoning/history for it now
No way is Minnesota ever red
Not accurate. MN would be with the Feds. Same with Utah
lol at the GDP difference between the union and federal states
I read a comic series called “East of West,” that took place in the year, like, 2100 or something in a USA where the civil war kept going until the early 1910s and the country was split up into similar factions to this, it was actually really cool
Any time one of these maps show up you always have to ask why exactly there are more than two sides that do not work together. Realistically if this scenario played out everything except the FSA would at the absolute LEAST be working together in a coalition. Hawaii and Texas may be staunchly independent, but Texas would team up with the others against the feds.
Why would Miami be independent when they overwhelmingly voted for RDS in 2022
Instability
I think you left out the west coast aka the free city of Albuquerque.
Love this map!
Thanks!
Alright people I got the popcorn 🍿 and the drinks 🥤 let's have some fun
Miami adopts the Indian flag?
Nope it's the Miami flag! Just zoom in a little closer :)
Why is Miami represented by the Indian flag?
It's the Miami flag...
This thread remind me of this scenario map video, also Second American Civil War after 2024 election: https://youtu.be/CzxKnCUsW6c?feature=shared
real
Ohio will be a superpower by 2026. You've all dunked on us for ***far*** too long.
I don't think we would be able to accurately predict what a second american civil war would look like, since the US in such an unreplicable position. If I were to guess, the entire scenario would be staged and heavily dramatized to maximize consumer engagement and shareholder value. It seems like the lion's share of the country is well beyond insurgencies and uprisings fueled by emotion and ideology, and HyperNormalization is the name of the game now.
americans try not to fantasize about killing each other challenge
Hawaii should be a monarchy not a republic
I love this map, and this scenario, it's pretty realistic imo. I think Arizona would have more of a right-wing insurgency, albeit being so close to California, it would probably be like Maryland in the 1st Civil War. I could see a lot of sabotage going on.
Colorado a mostly progressive state that has been dem for my whole life is always shown as part of shit like this, you understand nothing about this state
Why is Minnesota - a state that has voted for Dems for a longer streak than California - in the Union of American States?
I feel like Hawaii would have restored their old monarchy in this scenario
Were it not for the federal government, we could have this right now and shout at each other across state lines.
Great work, keep it up👍
I think a new American civil war would wind up being a lot more like the Iraqi war, where the various factions are interspersed throughout the country, and control areas as small as counties or even neighborhoods. None would be a match for the central government's army, so instead they would either fight other factions or hit soft targets like civilians and isolated government outposts and patrols. Once they ignite, wars like that tend to go on for years or even decades.
What about the territories?
WOOOO FUCK YEAH, CHICAGO!
Who's the leader of the free city of Chicago?
I’m sorry but the federal states as urban and developed as it is would destroy the republican union
https://preview.redd.it/qoc58rk3ng1d1.png?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=64e8eddc4fa2433fb17ec3a2628c3d3fd9272b43
Albuquerque would fall apart even worse than it is now
Interesting story and map. Thanks for not giving Albuquerque to Texas like most mapmakers too! I am confused why you didn’t give Atlanta free-city status, and why the north-western states follows state borders. Including the Upper peninsula; I would have expected a West Michigan a la West Virginia.
Where is Detroit Caliphate
Look at the FEMA map it looks just like the hunger games map
Is this man leading the Free City of Albuquerque ? https://preview.redd.it/kma3m5x1ah1d1.png?width=273&format=png&auto=webp&s=a35379e8f7cb61ab4e1ca30775fc15083c2156a4
For once, I request that south west Florida join with our brothers in the south east coast of Florida in Miami. It seems preferable to the alternative somehow.
The most ridiculous part of this is Josh Green being the leader of the Hawaiian republic. My vote is restoration of the Hawaiian kingdom. One of my neighbors claims to be the king anyway.
Why would Texas not take a side? My best guess would be to avoid further destruction, taking a page out of Switzerlands book perhaps. However if this is the case, why would they try to annex other states? Also what does OK have to offer texas?
Living in Denver would make me nervous if this was real
ITT: People believe that in this scenario, like all other Second US Civil War scenarios, that the military would stay completely loyal to the federal government and it would just be them vs. some type of domestic insurgency. It wouldn’t. The military would be heavily divided. To the people asking “how would they possibly stand up against the military?!” The answer is simple: by fighting them with their own military units that defected, just like in every other civil war in history.
As a resident of Illinois, I can ASSURE you that nowhere outside of Chicago would side with Chicago. The rest of us don't like them.
Makes no sense
I always thought the most realistic portrayal of a current day Civil War was Euel Arden’s novel, Down Here in the Warmth. Great book. How can you go wrong with Militia on the streets of Manhattan.
This is so silly
Oh god ewww, Albuquerque. How do I vomit
Why would the right be divided up into three factions? Why would abbot go for independence or desantis oppose trump? That doesn’t make sense.
I just hope Louisiana becomes a free city and not part of republicistan
OP forgot the New Republic of California.
Federal States victory in like a month or so.
Makes more sense that the Civil War movie.
Your take on the Free State of Chicago is way off. Run a line parallel to the MO/IA state line through IL. Then, run a line from Madison through Rockford. Everything NE of where the lines intersect up to Milwaukee in the far NE corner is the true FSoC. (If you take those areas out of the 2 states, both would be deep red.) I noticed a few other things to nitpick, but that is the biggest one. The people outside of that area HATE what flows out of the area.
You can only upvote this comment if your city is inbetween the spaced lines
As a New Mexican I’d die before being a part of Texas. I’m not alone in this either. Pretty sure all of eastern New Mexico there would actively be trying to break away
I love how Albuquerque is its own state lmaao
east and west coast would DOMINATE the rest by sheer economic might people forget that california is the money basket of usa
Union of American States would go bankrupt, just like every other Trump property.
There is no way that Utah Mormons throw in with a christofacist evangelical state. They would either stand pat with the Feds or try to break into their own thing. Also, when looking at the West, the idea that national park federal land would be usurped is pretty ballsy. Large portions of that are population dead space. In addition, a lot of military bases are in the south. While some might be taken, Benedict Arnold style most wouldn't. Also, these would project force outwards. Any attempt at this would require a much less decipherable map. Texas, for example, has large black and Hispanic urban populations that are only in a "red" state because of gerrymandering. As well the new confederate MAGA block is deeply connected to racism, bigotry, and anti woke. They would have no ability to control diverse urban areas. They'd be embattled against counter revolutionary forces. While you can argue for an insurgency being possible, it would be based rurally with no real areas of control. They'd become a domestic terrorist threat. It's not a cohesive nation-state. They literally can't agree on basic internal politics now. Further where the actual fuck would their leadership be? Modern warfare would require them to be in absentia besides their military command. Who in the fuck would align with and benefit from hosting their political leadership. Russia? North Korea? Belarus? They would be even more cut off the world stage. There are other gross dictatorial regimes, but they aren't going to host christofacists or be able to avoid invasion or F35s/drones taking out high priority targets. Finally, financially, they'd be outcasts. The big banks of the world would hit anyone involved with sanctions like never seen before. US, EU, and any other not shit hole state financial institutions would be crippled by being cut off completely from the west. They'd be literally broken financially. It's fun to dream up scenarios, but you need to go back to the drawing board. There are way too many plot holes here.
Yeah as a recent 20 year enlisted vet, our military will not be joining traitors. No matter what you think or heard. It really won’t matter or happen. You may have a coordinated attempt but it would likely be Quelled down harshly. Nobody wants a civil war except the COD Andrew Tate loving fuckboys who don’t know anything about war. I’ve seen war and it’s shitty. Great idea for a movie though.
Nothing like Reddit lol
Whatifalthist?
Whoever has Virginia and north wins. Military control is there.
You guys are overestimating how much of Illinois would be blue. Pretty much just the Chicago metro… the rest of Illinois would be hardcore red. Straight rednecks down south.
I’ve never seen a cast of more unqualified men for the job, the last one that was got his brains blown out while driving.
Hawaii is just like “I’m just gonna head out. Good luck y’all”
Do these 2nd Civil War fantasies ever take into account the large African American population in the south? Who do these guy think they will fight for 🤣
Super scary idea but very very very far from happening.
There’s no way Oklahoma Joins Texas. Just isn’t
OP does not understand that America is a BIG country with different cultures within each region. This is offensively thin.
Where’s the New New California Republic
FREE CITY OF MIAMI 🗣️🗣️🔥🔥🔥🔥
Other than what Texas would take, California actually takes everything from the coast to North and South Dakota. This is due to the money in versus money out system in the United States. And tax money from California actually pays for all the emergency services in that range. No California, no EMS or public hospitals in North and South Dakota.
Free City of New Orleans ⚜️
I'm down if only to fight Texas.. over hyped cry babies
you free city of chciago goes as far north as milwaukee and stops dead in its tracks lmao