If we had a civil war again here, would Russia intervene?

[grasswire]

Would another country save our dissenters from our government?

I can't help wondering.

[Electric Monk]

1. I'd prefer NATO

[dipsydoodle]

13. That isn 't the purpose

of the anachronism known as NATO.

[1awake]

2. Dunno, but its not a accurate analogy either way.

I get your meaning and part of me agrees.

[Brigid]

3. That would be one civil war that would end real quick.

Russian intervention would be the one thing that would get us to put aside our differences -- common enemy and all that.

[Throd]

4. No. The current Russian government would love to see us burn the country down.

[Cleita]

5. They didn't the first time so I doubt it. However, the French

did help us out in the Revolutionary War. If there was a chance that we might start shooting nukes at each other, I think the world might get interested though enough to attempt to do something. Another reason we must never let another bunch of neo-cons in power again especially the war hawks.

[Scootaloo]

9. The British were ready to intervene for the Confederacy

The thing was the confederates had to demonstrate staying power - the British weren't going to invest in a losing cuase. The Confederates never managed that, so the British sat it out.

Which ultimately probably kept America from becoming a commonwealth state - the Confederacy's trade would have wholly relied on the British, and the northern states would be squashed against two crown dependencies and also reliant on British trade as a result, effectively resulting in a British re-acquisition of North America, if only de facto.

harry Turtledove never followed through on THAT alternate history reality

[liberal_at_heart]

11. Yeah and helping us put the final nail in their own financial coffin and started their Revolution.

That could be our future too if we don't start focusing on making sure our people are not starving to death.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Why not? Undoubtedly, they would claim it was in their "vital national interests" to "protect" us.

[FarCenter]

7. in our last Civil War, the British came close to supporting the south

mainly because they wanted to ensure a continued supply of cotton for their textile industry.

In the Revolutionary War, the French played a significant role in supporting the insurgents.

[Lizzie Poppet]

8. I doubt it.

If it really was a scenario of a dissenting minority of citizens facing the government's intact military, then any intervention not carried out by Canada or Mexico would have to get forces here by sea (and maybe some by airlift). Our military's ability to interdict such transport would remain largely intact (it being unlikely that defeating an insurgency would rely heavily on naval forces). Only a handful of nations could even attempt to get significant forces past that interdiction; none could realistically succeed.

If the more likely (but still damned unlikely) scenario of a fragmented US military, it would be much easier for a major military power to intervene...but I still don't think they'd want to. Nightmare scenario for all involved parties...

[stevenleser]

10. Russia isn't having a civil war. nt

[Iggo]

12. Ups.

[DavidDvorkin]

14. False equivalency.