(I posted this back in November of 2006, but it remains relevant):
I believe that if we are attacked on that level, we are more likely to face a military takeover of the government, than a civil war per se.
Consider sometime in the future, with a democratic president (you-know-who, perhaps the next John Kerry, or another Dhimmi Carter), and a democratically-controlled Congress.
Consider that the Iranians/Pakistanis/terrrorists/whoever get lucky by smuggling into the United States 3 or 4 nukes and succeed in blowing out the core of several cities (need not even be the #1 and #2 targets, which of course are Manhattan and D.C.). But also consider that - in the immediate aftermath and chaos - it may be difficult-to-impossible to pin the blame on any specific nation.
What would the official [Democratic] U.S. Government "response" _be_ from a democratic regime?
You would certainly see martial law in the ground zero areas, and perhaps extending even statewide and into the surrounding states.
But I seriously doubt we would see the Democrats take off the gloves and sharpen the knives for war. Their inherent weakness and inability to act would become glaringly apparent as the days progressed.
I would even expect there to be official Democratic statements of "conciliation" towards the Muslim world, that America might begin to address and accomodate their "grievances".
Under such pressure, I believe the leadership of the armed forces might begin talking among themselves about the need for some kind of "action" to propel the nation towards self-defense (of which the Democrats seem to know nothing).
And I also believe that "the Right" - knowing that the Democrats will never defend the United States and engage the forces of Islam full-center - will accede to a military coup under the pressure of the times.
It may be seen as an act of desparation by those of us who are not willing to "submit" in this struggle - but given the record of the Democrats, it may also be seen as the only logical course of action that will permit the nation to recover from the attack, counter-attack, and move forward in the face of paralysis and inaction by those who control the government.
And I must truthfully say that, under such a scenario (hopefully I'll be long gone before the Islamic world develops such capabilities), I would welcome it as an alternative to Democratic surrender.
Off-the-wall, I suppose, but to me, this seems more likely than "civil war", at least at first.
In a civil war, two (or more) sides take up arms and fight against each other.
In our times, the Democratic side is unwilling to fight even with the most powerful military force on earth willing to stand behind them. I don't see "man-in-the-street" liberals actually "fighting" against anyone. They are much more willing to run up the white flag than the American one!
- John
That's exactly the scenario we were practicing during the Vigilant Guard exercises last May, and during Valiant Shield last week.
Funny how those fires broke out in California just after a major JCS/FEMA/Homeland Security on coordinating the response of local, state, tribal, interagency, Department of Defense, and non-governmental organizations and agencies involved in homeland security and homeland defense, right in time for a real-world series of disasters requiring the the response of local, state, tribal, interagency, Department of Defense, and non-governmental organizations and agencies involved in homeland security and homeland defense....
Just a coincidence, no doubt....[but well-planned, nevertheless!]