[f38zf5vdt]

I think maybe the user is implying that a civil war will break out. I started reading about the original American Civil War after recent events. The lead up to that was protracted. As long as some states begin assembling militias now and unify, it's probable they will be able to mount an attack against the Federal government as happened back then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_events_leading_to_...

[s1artibartfast]

The 1800s for a very different time when the national army essentially didn't exist. And probably isn't a very good model for what a modern national breakup looks like.

Brexit would be the best case, although most objections to the federal government would be resolved with a reduced size and scope

[JumpCrisscross]

> maybe the user is implying that a civil war will break out

I’m not. Short of a decapitation strike in which MAGA and Musk are taken out in a night of long knives, which would itself be more destabilising to our republic than anything they’ve done, there is little to play for a military conflict à la the Civil War in a nuclear state. If we’re going to see a civil war, it wouldn’t be states vs U.S. but some compartment of the U.S. claiming legitimate power while another denies it, e.g. the military deposing Trump or him refusing to step down after impeachment and conviction or an electoral loss.

[f38zf5vdt]

I see. My opinion is that nuclear weapons are more or less useless in a modern conflict, as has been observed in the Russia-Ukraine war with endless Russian sabre-rattling. The collateral damage from nuclear weapons makes their usage suicidal, and in the case of the US, states breaking away from the Federal government would also inherit a nuclear arsenal -- leading to a stalemate.

The Russia-Ukraine war has convinced me that artificial intelligence driven drone warfare has rendered nuclear warfare obsolete. The drones act as a force multiplier which can mass target the enemy with little collateral damage.

[JumpCrisscross]

> nuclear weapons are more or less useless in a modern conflict, as has been observed in the Russia-Ukraine war with endless Russian sabre-rattling

Russia is constrained by India and China in its use of tactical nukes in Ukraine. That wouldn't apply in America.

> collateral damage from nuclear weapons makes their usage suicidal

The excess damage caused by tactical nukes when compared with conventional weapons, particularly the low-efficiency sort that tend to find their way into civil wars, is principally diplomatic. We're currently seeing a breakdown of the rules-based international order.

> in the case of the US, states breaking away from the Federal government would also inherit a nuclear arsenal

Why? The nukes are on U.S. land, legally and militarily. A state militia attempting to storm a nuclear silo is, if anything, the closest legitimate reason I can think of for why Washington might nuke its own homeland.

> Russia-Ukraine war has convinced me that artificial intelligence driven drone warfare has rendered nuclear warfare obsolete

There have been no AI drones in that war. Drones are reigning free because nobody established air superiority.

[f38zf5vdt]

> There have been no AI drones in that war. Drones are reigning free because nobody established air superiority.

This hasn't been true since last year, when automated targeting systems began entering the battlefield. They still are not as widely deployed as personnel controlled drones, but over time it appears to be shifting towards battlefield autonomy. Nuclear weapons are a cudgel, automated human-free weapons are a scalpel.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/missiles-...

[JumpCrisscross]

> hasn't been true since last year, when automated targeting systems began entering the battlefield

By this measure we’ve had hypersonic AI “drones” in air-to-air combat since the 70s.

[relaxing]

A heat seeking missile is not equivalent to AI-powered automated target acquisition.