Any type of conflict, whether civil or revolutionary, would be met with nearly immediate intervention by outside powers. China would do its damnedest to take the western parts, especially the coastal states. Russia would side with the South and maybe some mix of SA countries. Russia would probably take Alaska. England (EU) would abandon tacit control of what's left over and maybe sell off certain parts to others like ME. If we balkanize, this becomes the next ME warzone where proxy wars are fought. The other option is Russia begins instigating Southern Separatist movements and the South becomes the new Syria, where EU (China behind the scenes as well, along with certain ME factions, which England is still largely behind) instigates a North American Union. Either scenario leads to a swift but briefly violent climax of a constitutional convention where the Military holds tribunals, purges what's not working and certain forces retract and take a break for a few decades and then give it another go, picking up from where they left off. Nothing much changes, no real progress is made beyond a momentary pause and we fix **much less** than we could have if we take the other direction: This other direction is we sit here and be patient while the retards practically hang themselves. /ourguys/ are letting things play out and they seem to be hoping for the path of least resistance. Apparently, this path has the least civilian casualties, 4%-6%. Your accelerationist plans would net a great deal more. Maybe I'm not the best to guesstimate, but I'd be surprised if it stayed under 10%. So, what you're really arguing for is more civilians dying while we trade longer term growing pains away for swift, high civilian casualties. Think this through.