It has already begun. I think your real question relates to how intense the violence will become. Violence will become more intense. It's too soon to say if it will reach the intensity of open warfare. It's worth noting that the American revolution was a civil war as was the War of 1812-1814 in many ways. I write as a Canadian who lives in Loyalist country.

Arsalan,  

For political demographers, that's a question that is more Interesting than you might think.  From the perspective of the Age-structural Model of State Behavior, the likelihood of an intra-state conflict (>25 battle-related deaths per year, appearing in the UCDP/PRIO data set), which is "civil" rather than "ethnoreligious," is very low for countries in the "mature phase" of the age-structural transition (median age 36 to 45 years), such as the US (current median age, ~38.5 years).  Although, for age-structural models of intra-state conflict, there is no rigid tipping point along the "age structural domain" (an X-axis measured in median age), true civil wars (without an ethnic component) nearly always begin in the youthful phase of the transition (median age

Some say the civil war has already begun. Others believe this is how America has always been - domestic strikes and riots here and there - but not serious civil war. I believe the USA is unlikely to get a civil war that qualifies to be defined as war because of two or three reasons: 

But the rest of the problems facing domestic America will continue in the foreseeable future.

Statistically very unlikely.  The established risk factors of state weakness, difficulty in projecting force, small states, all point against a civil war in the United States.  The only risk factor working against the United States is that it is not contiguous.  

Is there the potential for sporadic violence (absolutely) and for terrorism (of course. . .  indeed the large number of veto points in the US political system probably increases likelihood of terrorism), but a civil war as organized violence between the state and an armed group that produces between 500 and 1000 deaths annually is very unlikely.

As far as the concept of civil war goes, it is waged against the ruling authority whom the masses don't pay much heed. Although the ratings of President Trump have hit a nadir, we need to understand that he is a democratically elected leader and merely in the first year of his Presidency. The chances of unrest at a massive scale are not that much but yes the recent developments have been quite unAmerican in their character, particularly the developments after the Charlottesville episode where the President behaved in a partisan manner. All said, it is still early days to say that America is on the verge of civil war.

Depends how the war was defined.  It is clearly not possible to mobilise large armies in modern states so there will not be a civil war like the one of 1861-5.  

Similarly there are no polarising political factors at play in spite of the media trying to construct one.  There is no 'cause' identifiable in western societies around which an insurrection can form, or at least not one that is strong enough to mobilise an army.

Insurgencies today focus on the use of terror tactics rather than battles and that is a real danger.   This can come from the far right, the far left or from religious fanatics.  It is highly unlikely however that these groups are large enough or sufficiently organised to survive a co-ordinated counter insurgency effort.  

I am sure formal statistical models are interesting. However, the fact that the issue is being openly discussed in American society is even more revealing and merits further research - please see http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/is-america-headed-for-a-new-kind-of-civil-war 

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Ahmed & readers,

I'd estimate the plausibility of the idea as pretty meager. While there is a good deal of political divisiveness, much of this is played up in the media for the sake of ratings and attracting an audience. In terms of political forces, it is much more a matter of thoroughly established institutions (public and private) fighting for political influence. Those involved in the conflicts are unlikely to risk their standing with their institutional constituencies --let alone the institutions themselves.

In public, people are generally quite civil and respectful to each other, and the numbers inclined to intensive political activity are comparatively small. I'd say that most people are conventionally patriotic. (Violence in American society is usually private and often self-destructive.) There is some political harassment, but it is chiefly covert and hidden from general view. There is presently a good deal of activity aiming to reduce the sway of the internet trolls and loonies. (Notice the recent toll on stock-market values of some internet platforms.)

In some contrast with Turner's remarks just above, I don't see much serious danger of any "insurgency" --right, left, religious or not. The numbers of people with any similar, intense political motivations are exceedingly small and generally ineffective.

Though the U.S. originated from a revolution against British rule in the late 18th century, one should keep in mind that even that revolution was of a character to bring the more conservatively minded along--in contrast, say, with the French or the Russian revolutions. (The genuine Tory, British loyalists generally left for Canada or Britain.) Moreover, down to 1800, the Federalists, including Washington, Adams and Hamilton more or less ran the show. This was not questioned in principle, though an opposition did form, since they had fought for American independence. The general conviction is that the politicians come and go.

H.G.Callaway

I do not see America being able to free itself in the foreseeable future from those political constraints that have brought the consequences of the policies of the last US presidents to the country. The potential of military superiority is too much in line with the political misguided decisions they make - with devastating, long-term consequences for others. And it looks like the current US President is pushing this development. In politics, too, one is ultimately dependent on humane qualities in order to be able to act internationally - above all on trust and credibility. The current US government is putting both at risk. An astonishing decline of a great nation.

Notably, one of the pillars of any democratic nation is to settle domestic sociopolitiacal differences through dialogue and negotiation. The political think tank centers in America are wary of disruptive social events and they prevent any social mishap which could otherwise influence the national solidarity and integrity. Besides, the international image of America is so great that the spirit of patriotism is quite high among the American people. On this basis, the chance of a civil war breaking out in America is very dim.

not war but only riots occassionally

In my opinion, I don't think so. The true picture of the state of the economy are usually overexaggerated by the main stream media. In reality, far from it.

Let's hope not but interesting quarry. Following

I don't think so.

The civil war is so difficult to conclude is that intimate enmity, that destructive familiarity, creates psychological wounds which are harder to overcome than those in wars easier to type as unfamiliar, fought against distant, hostile, inhuman enemies.

It is very unlikely to happen...and we do not hope for any kind of violence in any country.

In my opinion, the U.S has built a system that no group or circumstance can over turn in a short while. As long as this system is maintained, no war in view.

The circumstances that led to the American Civil War of 1861-5 were in part due to the significant differences in state culture and economics. The slavery issue was a manfestation of that and many in the south saw the efforts of the abolitionists as a direct attack on their way of life.

The identification with state before country also played a part in the mindset that led to the war. Many in the southern states regarded their neigbours almost as 'foreign' relatives. Robert E. Lee himself when offered command of the Union Army declined because he would not lead a national army against his own state of Virginia.

The situation today is quite different. Suggestions of states considering secession are exaggerated and no modern 'confederacy' is identifiable.

While the prospect of an all out civil war is inconceivable there is a low level threat of asymetrical insurgency. This threat is unlikely at present but a major economic crisis could present some localised problems.

The United States today is a high surveillance society and it is unlikley that any insurgent group could mobilise a sufficently large force to threaten the existence of the country without being detected. H.G Callaway is quite correct that the very high levels of violence seen in US society are in the main based on personal rather than political grievances or are a product of too many guns mixed with too much use of psychiatric medications. The ideological/political cults do not represent a threat to American society at large and like most political extremists are too riven with factions to coordinate any country wide insurgency.

Barry, not a direct answer to the question, but I'm glad you've identified psychiatric drugs as responsible for America''s level of violence as this is something I've been insisting on for several years.

Nevertheless, I do not believe the USA will go down the road of Civil War, certainly not at present, as there are too many balances in place. It is possible that the next election will go against the right-wing incumbents and greater reflection will return to American society.

Never

Stanley

Neither do I believe that the US is facing an imminent civil war. Contrary to what our media tell us most people in America have better things to be thinking about than the alleged divide in the society.

Mowing the lawn is one of them!

Barry,

Any information on SSRIs , and I could use it. Your comment, Barry, is the first I've seen here on psychiatric drugs-at least providing a realistic view not an indoctrinated one.

American people form a nation which is the symbol of democracy. A civil strife in this country is quite unlikely if impossible. One of the assets of such a great nation with great people is to predict conflicts and to settle them down before they get out of hand. America is the master of her fate because all political bodies realize the importance of U.S. interests and do everything to keep America second to none.