I don't think people know what they are talking about when they say "civil war". I'm also certain all the murmurs about it are from a radical but loud part of the population.
There are a few perspectives to look at this from
- From an individual human level, only a certain breed of human will go from "not liking something" to "actively killing other humans" because of the thing they don't like. This is more so when you consider the majority of the population are civilians, have kids and/or are elderly.
Well, knowing a bit of History, I would believe rather than most humans are able to kill each other, by any means, if an emotional (or ideological) threshold is reached. Not all, for sure, but most.
And I doubt that "humanist values" or so, spreaded more widely since some decades or centuries (at least in Occident), could be of any use. I know a teacher of survival (in nature), who is also a trainer in self-defense, who says that the "civilisation varnish" goes off quite quickly under stress (for instance due to food scarcity or perceived aggression).
- Western countries are existing in a context of pronounced global pressure from emerging countries. Does anyone actually think the security services will sit around idly whilst the population has "civil war" destroying the fabric and integrity of civil society?
You mean the police, army, etc. ?
I think inevitably what we are witnessing is our notion of what a "country" means is undergoing very drastic and rapid change. I don't know where it'll all end but I don't think "civil war" in the traditional sense is the destination. I think you may get radical elements in the population try and start something but I think when the realities of human brutality kick in to the wider population, they'll be clamouring for the security services to step in and sort it out. In short, no one wants to live in a literal warzone, civil war or not.
Probably, yes.
Also, civil war means people need to get active - warring is a physically demanding occupation. The population as a whole is not in a state to be engaged in a civil war from a physical preparedness perspective.
Indeed, for most of them.
Also, the population lacks the means to carry out civil war short of butchering people with knives as there are no guns amongst civilians in a lot of European countries.
I don't know the case of other European countries, but in France, if indeed most of the people don't own guns, there are some guns.
The number of legally owned guns is about 4 to 4.5 millions. Including hunters, target shooters, collectors, and some security professionals.
If you add policemen (including "gendarmes", part of the army but with a function of police),
it's about 5.5 millions.
For
illegally owned guns (including historic guns, from past wars, etc., plus gun trafficking), some estimations are
about 8 to 10 millions. (But of course it's hard to tell.)
So
maybe 10 to 15 millions of guns, for about 69 millions of citizens. (Government numbers, not the one given by the Cs.)
To me, that's enough for a bloody civil war...
And I guess that if a civil war would last for months or more, some new networks for gun trafficking would be created, to sell in the black market guns from Ukraine, Middle East, etc.
My case remains, I don't see how "civil war" happens from a practical point of view.
I can see radical elements and flashpoints but I think these get put down quickly.
Let's hope so !
. It might not be slavery in the sense of one person forcing another person to do something, at a fundamental level, it's slavery in the sense that to survive you must do something, or by extension, someone else MUST do something on your behalf. Otherwise you are literally not going to survive.
