What makes America fundementally unique where this can't happen?
It happened in Germany, Russia, China, but it can't happen here. Why not?

The evidence is in human nature.

Happened in dozens of countries in Africa during the brush wars in the 70's & 80's. Happens in the middle east. Happened in South America, but it can't happen here. Why not?

Because we have systems in place and measures in place to help prevent or fight them, not saying it can’t happen. But it has the least chance to happen or succeed.

Systems that are dissolving before our very eyes.

But systems that are in fact in place, but let’s go back. What makes you even think in a civil war here if it was to happen, that the North would even go for a general wipe of the south? With what hardware, with what resources? Per capita most military personal are in fact southerners, so where is the evidence to begin supporting that opinion? Or let’s even go bigger and further, what if the politicians split and the south has crooked leaders just as the north? How would a scenario like you were thinking play out when all the bad people aren’t all on one side?

Hold on, internet buggy.

Alright. Second question first:

No worries

The entire point of sucession is to get away from the corruption that's plaguing the North, correct?

Before we go further with that. Just to make sure.

Do I have that understood correctly?

Yes, in general let’s say that is the main reason for civil war number 2

Alright, not saying that can't happen, but it definitely defeats the purpose.

Alright, point number 1, would be harder this time, but the problem is that people adapt. Life would get harder for the North for a time, but like Great Britain during WWII, this only goes so far.

I’m not disagreeing but let’s think, what is a corrupt politician? Because we both know both parties have their faults, there’s corrupt in both. So what if the southern leadership has those same politicians?

Well, and this is why my position has always been "Stop retreating and ceding ground, start taking the ground back." My father was from NY state, hardcore republican, very conservative protestant, hated unions to right down to the bone.

I can agree to simplify though, let’s go ahead and make all corrupt go to north and the south is then fighting the corruption or seceding for that reason. Is that right?

Sure.

Not that that's likely.

Ok so you then think that the north’s first and foremost goal is then to wipe the southern population?

No, the North's goal would be to retain the South at any and all costs up to including the Southern population.

People are replacable, the land isn't.

But we agreed the north has the corruption and politics that go with it which means they don’t want just land they want full control. Which is enslaving the population not destroying it, but let’s dive in. With what resources do you think the north has to do this? As stated before, per capita there’s more southern military personnel than northern. Most of the infrastructure that supports the military industrial complex also sits in the south ( not saying there is none in the north or what is there wouldn’t be formidable)

Grandmoff doesnt want you to know he secretly is wearing slippers

Well, and this is where things would get really bitter. The North would, at first, lose that control. But let's say that the South does manage to stop the Northern invasion, which it very well might. But then what happens after that? I would posit something very much like the China/Taiwan situation, or the North/South Korea situation. Those places exist as long as the United States is there to back them.

Lol Undead

The North would enter a cold war mentality, where the population would be conditioned to hate the the people who seceded, seeing them as deceivers and slave masters.

Sorry, autocorrrect seceded.

From there, things get to the point where you might have extra-national entities backing the South, but that would beg the question of "why?"

And also "At what cost?"

But I think you are getting closer, I think a Cold War or a general idea that neither would get anywhere in an outright war is more along the lines. I think a nasty start is very true, I think a lot of deaths.. but I think we diverge when you start along the lines of either side starting to wipe the other for any reason. No matter what we fight over the other side just wants domination and full control

I think we can also agree at some point other nations would offer their hands or try their hands is more likely the case, but what countries and for what reasons? And who supports who... if the north has the corruption wouldn’t logic dictate that the corrupt nations would try to align with them? And Vice Versa

Right, and who are the corrupt nations? More to the point, which nations *aren't* corrupt? Look at the EU. Russia. China. All of SA.

And that's what I was hammering Zilla about. Theoretically, in his Dixie utopia, the South would be a shining beacon of purity. If that's the case, the entire world is against them.

That’s what I’m asking why countries and for what reasons haha. There’s lots to debate here, let’s say China throws with the north and the more conservative allies of the “traditional US” throw with the South (Australia, Britain)

In which case, why wouldn't the North go for full genocide?

If the world is trying to cleanse any shining beacons of purity then yes I agree, but I don’t see it.

I still see dominance and control

Truthfully, neither do I, I see things more your way.

And then there's the political deal-making that would happen. Alright, so let's say that CSA gets the support of the EU. At what cost?