also, there is one small very big issue with nukes, even if the usage of one doesnt enact MAD, you literally cant hold the territory you just hit, meaning you have to cede that territory so you dont kill yourself with radiation

but it also means that the enemy cant hold that region either

And I don't mean just "we launch one to let them know what's up."

I mean Fallout 4 scenario full scale nuclear winter.

nukes for all purpose for modern warfare are pretty much useless if MAD isnt instantly enacted

Which is why it would be enacted.

mean sure, you force the enemy out of the region you want to capture, but it also means you cant go in and hold that territory to put a staging grounds at to dig deeper into enemy territory

But it doesn't matter because literally everyone will be dead, which is why Russia won't do it.

its why no one will fire a nuke, even in a full blown world war

Oh, someone would.

because the objective of war is the acquisition of land and control and influence as much regions as you can to beat the enemy into submission

And besides, you're thinking that everyone would be on your side, why so?

Why would they attack the North only?

I mean, Mexico has it's own guerilla army in cartels alone.

not saying that everyone would be on our side, but the big 2 would certainly take a foot against the US in the event of a civil war

And if war pops off, they going to be happy to take advantage.

they know that they cant take the entirety of the US, but they will take enough of it that they can put staging grounds to influence over long term

No doubt. I'm not saying it would be good, I am saying that it would be disastrous. I am saying that all the things that politicians are scared of doing to other countries? They are not scared of doing to their own citizens.

It would be ugly. All the things I said before. Cities burned out. Homes leveled. Fields poisoned. All of it.

Because the world would celebrate the fall of the American empire.

They wouldn't care if the United States kills itself.

There would be no grand guerilla war where the south fights from a civilian population, because there will be no civilian population.

Politicians main goal, even during civil wars as we can see from our own and others, is to remain in power. Can’t remain in power if you commit war crimes and wipe out the entire southern population (which you seem convinced there’s even a chance of which is dreaming). Enslave, they’d try. Censor, currently trying. Beat, mock, imprison... sure, but not wipe out.

By your logic, China should not exist.

Genocides happen. I am not saying they should happen, or that it is just. But they do. The Russians were doing it to the afghanis before they decided to quit the war. They didn't even bother hiding it, they simply bombed whole villages out of existence. They placed minefields where people grew their crops. Filled in wells.

And they would have succeeded had the Soviet Union not been basically collapsing as they did it. But that was economic policy that killed the soviet union, not the war crimes.

And nobody did a single solitary thing to stop it. They all said "Bad Russia, you shouldn't do that!"

But the most that happened is that we handed weapons to people in Pakistan to hop the border and begin fighting them.

How is that? And I don’t think anyone is denying that genocides happen.. not sure who said that

You did.

Where?

Politicians main goal, even during civil wars as we can see from our own and others, is to remain in power. Can’t remain in power if you commit war crimes and wipe out the entire southern population (which you seem convinced there’s even a chance of which is dreaming). Enslave, they’d try. Censor, currently trying. Beat, mock, imprison... sure, but not wipe out.

Yep, where does it say what you think it says? Lol

Define genocide.

Wiping entire ethnicities, or populations you don’t agree with. One I never said that doesn’t happen, still waiting on you to point that out. Two. Still waiting on how this means China shouldn’t exist by my logic.

Alright, the South suceeding would be a population the North would not agree with, correct?

Correct?

Or am I wrong?

Incorrect

How so?

The idea they wouldn’t agree with, every person there.. hard to see that

You're right, they would only take issue with the people who want to suceed.

But now you're simply splitting hairs to win the argument.

As in they wouldn’t agree with what the south did (secede) but that doesn’t mean they instantly hate and disagree with every single southerner