Discussions of the U.S. having another civil have gone mainstream recently. Director Alex Garland’s film “Civil War” hit theaters in April. An articles in the Economist covered the topic last week, and I read a great article last year on The Hill about the logistics of it, and how it would be far messier than most Americans imagine. Academics are also delving into this, with Barbra Walter’s (2022) How Civil Wars Start attempting to analyze other nations who have had similar conflicts and the political situation in the U.S., and The Next Civil War, by Stephen Marche, (2022) who gives five scenarios that could lead to war. The academics, more than the journalists, believe a civil war is imminent, or likely in the next decade.
I can understand why this topic is on everyone’s minds. What I don’t get is why people are not more terrified at the prospect, and a bit more assured by its infeasibility.
I say this for a couple of reasons. As someone on the left, I am scared and concerned about a second Trump term, especially for our election integrity and keeping the checks and balances in our government. However, I’m not scared enough to go to war with half the country if he wins. Would I donate money to oppose his policies? Of course. Would I protest? Would I risk jail time doing so? Absolutely. Would I hide friends or students who are undocumented if a massive deportation event were carried out? Yes. But all of that is well shy of taking up arms.
When would I? Maybe when/if Trump tried to run for a third term. Or, when he dies, if this authoritarian trend continues, and one of his minions tries to circumvent elections all together. Or his policies obliterate the bill of rights and the constitution.
Even then, I would do so with great resignation. Maybe that’s cowardice, maybe that’s realpolitik. Mostly, it is a concern that if a future civil war inflicted the casualties of the last one, that would be between 8.6 and 10.5 million American deaths. And probably two to three times that in wounded, sick, or injured. That makes one reconsider if there are not better ways to deal with an administration or electorate that you oppose. [1]
Now, I can imagine an inverse far-right version of me making this same rant. What would that version of me do if Trump were not elected? It may be that he would be equally willing to take up arms in that case, or if Trump died without a similar successor. I also wonder if we’re in a situation were the right is pushing every democratic boundary in order to get its people in power, because it is easy, and they’re not facing serious opposition. Which could change radically as the causalities stack up.
Of course, such a conflict would have huge differences to the last one, and it is possible that the casualties would be lower, given that military casualties, especially among industrialized nations, have declined (just compare causalities in Ukraine during the last two years and when the same territory was fought over during WWII). It is much more likely that more civilians would die than soldiers, as that has been the trend post WWI.
But the one thing that might make all the difference is nuclear weapons. A few things to consider on this point. One, if a serious rebellion were brewing, it is undoubtable that whoever was President, legitimate or not, Republican or Democrat, they would make securing nuclear weapons their first priority. As of 2021, in the U.S. there are about 400 nuclear missile in silos at airbases across the Midwest (in Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Colorado), as well as on B-2 and B-52 bombers at a half-dozen U.S. Airforce bases. There are also 280 missiles in our 14 Ohio-class “boomer” ICBM-equipped submarines. The airbases and submarines would be easy to secure, if you could count on the loyalty of the Navy and Airforce, but the silos would be much harder, because they’re spread out, and generally in the middle of nowhere. One of these silos and its missile would be the absolute number-one prize if you were a prospective secessionist. If you acquired even one nuclear silo, or one B-2, or one submarine, your rebellion would be secured, at least for a while. Now, of course, there are extensive fail safes, launch codes, etc, which are there to ensure that the wrong people (a la Dr. Strangelove) cannot launch nuclear weapons without executive authority. But anyone with enough technical knowhow could get around that in time, either via hacking or more brute-force means. Even the ability to create a dirty bomb would probably be a big deterrent from a U.S. government seeking re-unification.
While a U.S. government might tolerate or negotiate with a state or armed group with a couple of nukes during a period of confusion, once it had secured its stockpiles and borders, and saw a decent chance of success, it would opt for either an airstrike, a special forces deployment, or a nuclear strike, to regain or destroy said weapons. And depending on what casualties it had sustained, or if it felt that the existence of the Union were at stake, it would opt for “limited” casualties over being a long-term hostage. And this issue goes both ways on the political spectrum: if California wanted to secede in the face of an authoritarian Trump third term, we’d be out of luck, because for the time being, U.S. “boomer” submarines are stationed in Kings Bay, Georgia, and Bangor, Washington, and none of the airbases in the CA are equipped with nuclear weapons. Maybe there’s enough fissile material in Livermore to make a decent deterrent. In that sense, it would be much easier for states in the South or Midwest to secede than most states on the East or West Coast. Either way, I think too many people underestimate how far the U.S. government would go to ensure that there was not a hostile state in the Western Hemisphere with nuclear weapons. Take a look at the Cuban missile crisis if you want more details.
The other consideration, which doesn’t seem to be taken up a lot in the popular press, is that a civil war is really dependent on soldiers being split along ideological lines. Without defecting soldiers, you have little rebellion, though of course civilians, with a bit of knowhow and lots of anger and hate, are certainly capable of setting off bombs or sniping people. Would U.S. soldiers side with Trump, or any other authoritarian leader if they moved to end U.S. democracy? This one is more of a toss-up.
One, as we have seen (in the case of former Chief of Staff of the Army James McConville and former Secretary of Defense Ryan D. McCarthy) most senior military officers believe in civilian control of the military, and not using the military for law-enforcement. They also are all well-versed in the horrors of the last civil war. So that would go a long way in stifling a rebellion. This also goes, to a lesser extent, to all officers in the armed forces, who have similar knowledge and indoctrination. The other element reducing the friability of the U.S. military is that most of the people in the military are very young, and two, trained to follow orders. If their officers and sergeants, in the face of what they considered unjust presidential authority, or a rebellion lead by a group of states not headed by the president, decided to not go along, most of the soldiers under them wouldn’t either.
The flip-side to all that is that the military is by its nature more conservative than other institutions in the U.S. and there are indications that a majority of those in have conservative political views, and may be more open to the idea of solving problems with violence. And given that faith in democracy is at an all-time low, it would be expected that if not half, many, would go along with some kind of authoritarian takeover. The only caveat to that is that this inclination may not be so strong when it involves violence on other Americans, and the risk of death of their families in a war zone. Or their own deaths, and those of the people in their units.
The last (and to me most important) variable to consider is motivation. Trump himself has framed this next election as an existential crisis for America, and many of his supporters seem to feel that if he loses America will be destroyed, or ruined beyond repair. What I really wonder is how many of them truly believe that. Because it is hard for me to see the cultural grievances of the right (over gender, queerness, education, religion) as being so much of a concern they’re willing to start a war over them. Nor do the more mainstream policy concerns, such as immigration, foreign policy, drug policies, or dealing with global warming. I find it strange, especially, because unlike the last civil war, there doesn’t seem to be a singular decisive issue which neither side will compromise on. Also, conservatives have gotten so many things they wanted, include huge tax breaks, the end of Roe v Wade, expansion of gun rights, etc. Will the vitriol generated by social media echo chambers and TV and podcast evaporate in the face of actually having to take up arms to secure your political demands? Of riots, bombings, and shootings becoming de rigor for each election? If Americans have nothing else in common, there does seem to be a shared love of asses on couches, mindless entertainment, alcohol, drugs, and hedonistic food. Maybe the perils of short-term pleasures will actually save us from long-term destruction. Because nobody, not for generations probably, has any chance of really harming America, except for Americans themselves.
In some sense, I agree with the academics, in that what seems much more likely than a full-scale civil war akin to the last, is an insurgency. For many Trump supporters, the election will only be legitimate if he wins. If he loses, they’ll be more bitterness, more January 6ths, more violence. And if that feeling goes on and on, you are going to have people turning to bombs and sniper-rifles, and more horribly, turning on whatever soft targets are accessible, given the high security around elected officials. As horrible as that sounds, it might actually be preferable to more Antietams and Marches to the Sea. The only problem is that this might be the real route to authoritarianism, beyond Trump or anyone else. With enough Kansas-city bombings, enough domestic 9-11s, the security state is sure to get tighter and tighter, possibly prompting a new spiral of resentment and rebellion. It may be that election reform, especially of requiring open primaries, is what we need most to learn to live with each other. If we don’t, we may be on the route to violence of Americans against Americans, for a long time to come.
[1] The U.S. population in 1860 was 31,443,321, and the war caused between 700,000-1,000,000 deaths, which is around 2.26 to 3.18 percent of the population. So, in today’s terms, out of a population of around 331,500,000, we would end up with between 8.6 and 10.5 million dead.
Leonard Crosby 