Uncivil War, Too

A Hard Look At What A Second Civil War Would Look Like, by Artemis Cheeseburger of Fireteam Haole

Racism. Immigration. Political Ethical righteousness. Social extremism. Pandemic beliefs. This nation has not been in such conflict with itself since the Civil War, the 1960s, and 2 Girls 1 Cup. It seems that everyone has an opinion on everything and is willing to resort to brute force or execute drastic social media methods to convince you they are right and you are wrong. This is a recipe for disaster and as more and more people dip their hard-lined spoons into the pot to stir it, the resulting whirlpool is a massive shit soup that no one will want to eat. The question being asked now is not if we are headed for another civil war but how will it go down and, more importantly, who will win it? Fire Team Haole wanted to know and, between range time and snagging some killer breaks while on dawn patrol, we went out and did a little research.

Let’s clarify some things. For the intent of this essay, the first American Civil War will be considered the four-year brotherly brawl experienced in 1861 to 1865. Some historians hold that what we generally know as the Revolutionary War is the first American Civil War. We at FTH think that is a bunk theory since we weren’t of our own governance and were merely subjects of a royal kingdom. So, maybe we can consider that an English Civil War, but not an American one. Also, a few experts even consider the Reconstruction period (the rebuild of the nation after the Civil War) as a second civil war. We also think that’s completely bogus. While there was some strife and resistance to the massive national changes, it wasn’t an all out shoot’em up war and thus FTH isn’t going to bother riding that mush. 

There is high expectation that a new civil war will be linear, with states drawing their lines in the sand and taking up uniformed arms in force-on-force conflict. While some patterns between past the past war between states are presenting themselves, we think the nature of breakout will be completely different. Thus, how the first civil war went down isn’t necessarily a good template for how the next one will take place. Save for a few specific states, the division isn’t happening at the government tier, it’s happening all the way down to the neighborhood level. Rather than state-on-state, it may be neighbor-on-neighbor hardcore action.

Take a look at your own family and friends group. I don’t think anyone can say they haven’t seen the polarizing effects of social media play out on the people they care about. We’ve seen longtime friends split because their differences. Often, that drawn line doesn’t run along state or even municipal borders. That makes it complicated to figure out how a conflict will play out, or to know who your enemy will be. 

About the only state who has the potential to split and has the gumption to do so is Texas. They have resources, they have land and population. They could probably make it happen. They would need to be the first move. California is the only state that could break off and survive on its own economically. But, with the recent election, they’ll tow the union line. Further, they talked a big talk the last four years and showed Sacramento is nothing but a bunch of paddlepusses anyway. So, Texas is it and would need to be first. 

If the Lone Star state decides to paddle out, who else would go? There’s a good chance that most of the southern states would follow, along with the states in the corridor leading north from Texas. Based on voting data over the past twelve years, we broke down states by color: true red, light red, purple, light blue, and true blue. True red and blue states show a consistent alignment with the two corresponding political parties for the past four elections (to include this year’s). Light red and light blue represent a deviation in one electoral race, and purple states are states who’ve split both parties evenly. Thus, Iowa, Florida and Ohio are switch hitters and cannot be trusted. However the make up of each state no matter what its overall color can have varying degrees of red and blue within it, such as California where the state is pretty much blue in the northern and southern parts with a juicy red center. You can even break that down further and look at Southern California as a strong blue stronghold but Orange County still generally runs red and usually resists what Los Angeles County, and the state as a whole, chooses to do. Thus, it is difficult to say that state political alignment would perfectly dictate exactly how war would break out. 

But, for sake of argument, let’s look at a mano-e-mano brawl between fully divided states. Taking a look at national guard strengths of each state and adding them up based on our color breakdown, true red republican/conservative states pull about 159,093 nasty guardsmen (broken down at 123,758 regular national guard and 35,335 air national guard). If we add the lighter red states forces, we bump that total to 205,075 troops to fight for cessation. They would be up against the 171,320 true and light blue democrat/liberal states (roughly 46,700 of which are air national guard). The difference of 33,755 boots on ground (and air) can be significant, but we haven’t added the three flip-flop states who’ve voted for either party. Iowa staffs 6,799 guardsmen and 1,728 air guardsment, Ohio sports 10,455 NG and 4,882 ANG, and Florida brings 9,447 and 2,017 respectively to whichever side they choose to ride with. However, these three states dropped in on the red wave the last two elections so it is probably safe to say they’d roll the same, which would make the grand total of red state forces 237,393. If they didn’t, the numbers would be much more evenly matched with 205,075 red versus 203,638 blue. 

We’re also not considering the federal military component. It is difficult to say how those forces would be employed. While military members are sworn to uphold and defend the constitution and obey orders of the President, some may balk at drawing down on their fellow Americans while others may consider the threat to actually be the government itself. FTH thinks there will be so much turmoil within the ranks about turning on their ohana that it will render many of the combatant units ineffective. 

Numbers aren’t everything. Blue states control much of the eastern seaboard and all of the western coast, the latter of which a lot of important goods and supplies flow in from China and are sold in Walmarts throughout the red states. The Red hold very important oil and mining resources which could starve out blue industry and war machine. They also have huge swaths of agricultural land and could sustain to feed their troops more readily than Team Blue, who would be reliant on international support.   

So what does Blue have going for itself to sustain a win? As mentioned, they have control of the seaboards. This is important for freedom of movement and logistics. This also is an asset in the form of denial. While Alaska would roll red, they would be essentially be cut off from their fellow states, making utilization of their resources, namely oil, very difficult to distribute to the cause. The west coast has good resources, California being the largest provider as it has both oil, mineral and agricultural capabilities to at least sustain itself if not also distribute to less capable allied states. These coastal assets also will give it ability to source seafood. It also controls a portion of the Hollywood industry in which it can make viral anti-red hack flicks to sue for more support from citizens on the fence about where they stand as well as the international community. More importantly, they will control a majority of the surfable coast and pineapple crop can safely make their way across the Pacific to tiki bars up and down the coast which will undoubtedly triple in number to boost public moral through exotic escapism. The northeast will have a challenge, but their proximity to Washington D.C. and hosting the U.N. will allow them to grandstand to bigger audiences for more support. 

Despite having a sizable national guard force, the Red states have a lot to work on to secure a victory. While they have the resources, they a lot more border and land to cover and secure, pulling away a good number of troops from that large force. As stated, Alaska is on its own until they are either able to secure access via waterway or invade Canada (not a bad idea but may have to wait until later in the campaign). They easily control the Gulf of Mexico and, with their own fishing industry, may be able to secure goods from South America as their Chinese imports will most likely be interrupted by Californian naval forces. If they work hard on international relations, they might be able to secure a trade agreement with nations down south, depending on how Mexico sees this conflict and how much they want to get involved. If Florida rolls red, which it most likely will, access to Europe and Africa will be possible provided Blue’s navy can be kept at bay. 

Fire Team Haole ran several scenarios once hostilities commenced. Using a randomizer call a 20-sided dice, we simulated the conflict over U.S. map. Initially, we surmised that the red strategy would be to move first, and that that initial push would be to secure a port on the west coast. After several goes, we found that trying to do so by allocating forces in Idaho to push into Washington and secure Seattle and the Puget Sound would be risky and difficult. By shifting numbers that far north to boost troop totals, it drew away reserves from the red center of mass, allowing a blue shove from the east to secure places like Nebraska and Kansas which would disrupt the agricultural chain It also would connect the two stranded blue states of Colorado and New Mexico, who would not be able to provide anything to their cause previously and could now supply them with chile rellenos and good kush. Therefore, our red state strategist tried a bottom turn and gunning along the southern border. In doing so, red forces were able to push into and secure New Mexico, isolating Colorado, connecting Arizona and gunning straight for Southern California. It was a risky move, but it worked really well. It reduced blue naval capability, secured prime waves, and allowed for possible imports from Asia. While running shipments from Alaska were risky as the northwest blue navy was still active, it permitted some connection to that state. 

The difficult position blue was in – fighting a two front battle with forced divided to either side of the nation – was balanced by their ability to interact and pander to the international community. The blue strategist found that going to direct action typically didn’t work well. If it did, such as western forces cinching up the gap between New Mexico and Colorado by taking out Arizona and Utah, it had difficulty holding on to the large expanses of land. In that western scenario, with the Rockies creating a logistical divide, it was troublesome to negotiate and delays in supplies left troops starved and easy to wipe out by the consolidated forces of neighboring red states. Ohio and Indiana proved to be a problem. With it’s unusually massive national guard force, the two perpetually proved to be a thorn in the blue’s side with their combined 25,899 national guard force. It created a logistical problem in getting resources within that hemisphere and thus it was important for them to eliminate this threat. Major pushes were made into the two states and though the mission would eventually be accomplished, the battered blue had little reserves to do more in the area and basically a hold-in-place strategy took place afterward. 

A major tool in the blue strategy was to win favor with Latin America. In several scenarios, promises were made to grant land and other trade amenities should these nations cause disruption in the red’s supply chain or even take up arms against them. In two case studies, the Blue Team was able to promise Mexico land in Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, looser border restrictions and improved trade deals should they engage in cross-border skirmishes to alleviate pressure on other fronts. The Zimmerman Telegram-esque tactic worked and pulled vital combatants off the red’s line to focus on the southern border. Further, it reduced supply trade, Gulf Coast fishing and created difficulty utilizing the Panama Canal. In one scenario, the Red Team held fast on their northern and western fronts and openly declared war on Mexico, pushing into that nation as far as Guadalajara before they became stretched way too thin and had difficulty pushing on. While securing a decent portion of land and potentially opening west coast access, the action didn’t yield much in tenable land nor did it win international favor who decried the invasion and cut off any supply and support. Thus, pushing into Mexico was a very costly decision and not necessarily a fruitful one. 

In just about every scenario executed, either side gained and lost land and then held fast and opted for peace. Each were able to secure new advantages but at the cost of losing others. In the two scenarios where there was a clear winning side, the Red Team were the victors, but only after heavy losses and left the nation completely devolved. This allowed outside actors like China, Russia, Iran, and even North Korea to take advantage to the point of securing coastal areas like parts of Washington and Alaska. This was the case in one scenario played out where the Blue states opted to not use force to bring the breakaway states back into the union as, divided, the nation could not deal with aggressor threats. Everything was so give-and-take that we are certain analysts in either government will come to the conclusion that, “this shit is not ohana, so let’s just call it a wash, grab a Mai Tai and not bother.”