I have been reading about this lately. There was an article in the New Yorker, which I believe is a really high quality American publication. There have also been a number of articles in the Manchester Guardian about it. The imminent death of the American republic, the potential for a civil war, etc. I take it seriously because these are high quality newspapers writing about it. They don't just write pure garbage. Their journalists and editors put in decent investigation and research.
I'm not so convinced it will happen though. There are some ways to stop it. The way the Chinese put down the Beijing unrest of 1989 is a good example.
When the Communist Party saw the Tiananmen Square movement start to grow out of hand, they ordered the local troops, the Beijing garrison to do something about it. But the soldiers were unenthusiastic in carrying out those orders.
The party quickly realised that the local garrison could not be relied upon because they were all Beijing natives and the protestors were their families, friends, and neighbours.
So they did a quick transfer. They sent the Beijing garrison to some far off place, fukking Outer Mongolia or the Takla Makan or something in the middle of nowhere like that. And to replace them they brought up troops from southern China, who had zero sympathy for and zero loyalty to the students and workers of Beijing.
And this new garrison followed the orders to use lethal force and mercilessly suppress the Tiananmen Square movement by all means necessary. They had no problem accepting those orders because they were loyal to the ideology of the state above the local civilians.
So the US federal government could copy that example. Suppose there is an uprising in Arkansas or something. What they could do is pull out the garrison, send them to Alaska. Then pull out the Alaskan garrison, send them to California. And lastly pull out the Californian garrison, send them to Arkansas. Then have the new Arkansas garrison made up of Californians put down the revolt.
Civil wars only become a really big threat to the government of the day when the people and the army join together. If you can sever that bond then you can suppress the revolt.
If you look at Caesar's civil war for example, he had ten legions that were utterly devoted to him and loyal to him, and that's why he was able to win, because fully 1/3rd if not more of the entire Roman armed forces fought for him personally and not for the state. So if he gave the order to attack the state, they would obey without hesitation. This is much harder to replicate in the modern world because modern states are careful to organise their armies such that they are never loyal to one person, and especially not to a politician.
The question is, is the US military loyal to the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, and their own commanders? Are the armed forces loyal to the legitimate institutions of the state, in other words. Or are they going to be swayed by politics and ideology? Are they loyal to Trumpism or to Bidenism or any other ism, or are they loyal to the Republic? If the order comes from the institutions to open fire on revolting civilians, on civilian militias and rebellious local law enforcement agencies, who will they side with?
These are the key questions. I don't know the answer to any of them. Nobody does I suppose. We can only hope, one way or the other.
