A 3rd civil war

Hmm. This has been a fun debate. :)Clarifications:From what I can tell, my opponent is confused that I included long-range attacks and a foot invasion. This is the scenario that I am trying to show.1) Protests Start, Escalation to Civil War2) Authoritarian US government increases Media Control and Propaganda in an attempt to secure Loyalist ties and confuse the Rebels. Government also warns UN.3) Government starts mobilizing troops and reorganizing them to be located in 'Loyalist' areas, in preparation of war.4) Mobs break out and attack military bases. --->A. They find it abandoned. --->B. They are met by far more troops than expected.5) Government starts the long range bombing of Rebel Cities/States with chemical, biological, or perhaps even small nuclear weapons. UN starts mobilizing and joins in on the fight.6) Government/UN mobilizes army to clear out the enemies that were too close to bomb. 7) They continue to look for survivors and reclaim America. ====I shall use a similar format to my opponent in the last round.1. Looters1) Long Range Bombings will kill looters and rebels alike.2) Loyalist areas will still be under control by the government, which means that harsh laws are still in place to keep law and order.2. Allies1)Smuggling. Who's smuggling these weapons? I doubt that a small organization such as Al-Qaeda will be able to help out the war effort. And furthermore, I don't think that the location of Rebels and the Loyalists will be known that well. And also, in an area of no law, drug is likely to go up and crime syndicates start to gain power. A bunch of crackheads won't do much in a war.2) You must keep in mind that at this point, America would be somewhat of an "Authoritarian" government. People who hate America would think this: Help Rebels = Free American People = Help our enemies. Help Government = Continue Suppressing American People = Helping our Enemies Enemy. The UN would think this. Help Government = Stop War = Stabilization of Global Economy, since the US is back in the market. Help Rebels = Who Knows What = Who Knows What. They are far more likely to go with the option that they are absolutely sure of.3. Loyalties1) The Common US Soldier - His/Her family would most likely be Loyalist one, just like them. This means that during the escalation to the war, it is likely that his/her family is located in a Loyalist State/City. What does this mean? It means that other US troops will also be in that State/City somewhat securing their safety. Furthermore, the government has strong control over the media and is most likely going to be deploying propaganda and false information.2) The Common Rebel - His/Her family would most likely be rebels too. This means that their family is going to be located in a Rebel State/City. These areas are going to be bombed by chemical/biological weapons, almost ensuring their death. Furthermore, as the government leaves, the area is reduced to an anarchy, where crime usually starts running high. Figure it out for yourself.3) Undercover Agents. Apparently my opponent is trying to say that agents would stay with their families. -->A. Their family would be with them inside the small militia group. -->B. Their family would be at a loyalist city/state, protected by the military. Also, I don't see how the agents won't be able to contact the US/UN. There are thousands of people in mobs and perhaps everyday someone disappears. Would they really get that suspicious and keep track of one person? Furthermore, some undercover operatives won't be contacting the US/UN. Perhaps they'll just be targeting key members or perhaps set up traps. You can do this without the help of the US/UN.4. Order1) My opponent has apparently conceded himself that it will be 'random' mobs that attack US Bases. This suggests that there isn't a productive or efficient distribution of weapons. Furthermore, the military is most likely going to be ready for a war.2) From what I can tell, the Rebels aren't going to have much of a chain of command. Since the rebels are most likely going to be spread out across America, there won't be much 'mobilizing' - the Rebels have no idea where their allies want them to go. There is no one controlling this entire thing. This means that the mobs are likely to be small perhaps one city or community -- they aren't going to gather up a force of several states. Absolutely no organization. 3) The US government has control over the media and what the Rebels are seeing. This means that the government has control of information. They could give out false info, such as "the Rebels have won and the government has given up", and lead the rebels into false securities.4) Within the US Military, one must get 'promoted' to get to the next level. This means that they must perform their best and achieve excellence in their superiors' eyes. Greed will only help. On the other hand, in the rebels situation, there are a lot of ways you can advance. Killing a superior and claiming their position? Giving out false information to try to bring people to you? There is no monitoring, no laws within the Rebels. Greed will undermine their efforts.5. Historic Examples1) The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising - There is a difference. The US/UN's complete attention is being put on the rebels. Germany had to deal with multiple enemies and areas.2) Libya - Somewhat Conceded?3) The American Revolution - I suppose that in the past, guns were used much more often. Furthermore, the British weren't prepared for that sort of combat. On the other hand, our military today is much more efficiently trained.4) Vietnam - Desperate Times Call for Desperate Measures. The Entire Global Economy is at risk and there might be a power shift in the UN - they aren't sure what the Rebels are going to do. Everyone knows that they need to stabilize the US - and quick. When dealing with large, unorganized mobs, I think that these tactics would be the most efficient. (They might stop in the middle and switch to terror tactics although) 5) World War 2 - There will be an obvious escalation to war. Planning in the UN will occur long before the actual war, and differences in loyalist and rebel areas will be found quickly.6. Equipment1) Items such as UAV Drones or Chemical/Biological Equipment won't be available to the general public.2) My opponent claims that desertions would help increase the supply for the Rebels. See the Loyalties summary/argument.3) The Standard Soldier would still be far more likely to be fully equipped than the rebels.4) There is not enough organization or communication within the rebels to be able to distribute equipment.7. "Swarming".1) From what I can picture, it will be simply thousands of people pouring into the streets and marching to the Naval Bases. This makes them sitting ducks for bombs, snipers, and ambushes.2) I've mentioned this before - the military will regroup into strategic places. Loyalist communities are not likely to fight the soldier, in fact, they might even help out with the defense and provide Intel.3) My opponent gives a "13.333:1" ratio. I think that's a little bit too easy. Throwing a couple grenades and mowing down mobs will quickly give a US soldier 14 kills. You must keep in mind that these troops are defending bases and areas. A group of angry people with knives, broken glass bottles, and flag poles, won't do much. There won't be the element of surprise, as they'll be spotted from practically miles away. In fact, the US/UN forces are far more likely to have the element of surprise - they will be setting up in strategic buildings that help to defend the area. Furthermore, what will a knife do against a tank? Or an armoured vehicle? 8. Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.1) The UN would permit the use of these weapons. See "5.4"2) Large groups of mobs (what CON is trying to go for) will quickly be annihilated. =====From my perspective, it is quite obvious who will win. And that draws my arguments to a close.