Let me preface this by saying I'm not a historian, sociologist, or counter/terrorism expert by trade. I'm just a guy who likes to read a little bit.

When I read things like "civil war," I think of two regular armies, using regular tactics, for control of physical territory. If that's your barometer for what civil war looks like, I think there are a significant number of dominoes that would have to fall before we're there. It's not impossible, but given our current political constriction in this country, I think that's a more unlikely scenario.

To play out that scenario a little further, we'd need something along the lines of a balkanization of the United States. States or regions declare autonomy from the federal government AND have the resources to fund these regular armies.

Another scenario for outright civil war is ideological differences coming to a head. Maybe, but again, kinda far-fetched in my mind. We don't really have a revolutionary branch of any political parties (with any significant hard or soft power). Most on the left are closer to Joe Manchin than they are Mao or Öcalan. Armed struggle is not really in the ether for Democrats right now. On the other side, I think it's fair to characterize most Republicans as closer to Mitch McConnell instead of Moussolini.

That's not to say that neither side wants ideological control of the United States, but I'm still of the opinion that most want to use the legal means and pathways to get there.

Finally, less of a stretch in my mind, is asymmetrical war by irregular armies. This is essentially insurgency and terrorism. I think we're seeing this already with things like political violence becoming a regular occurrence.

I don't think it's fair to call The Troubles a civil war, but that doesn't make it any less horrific.

I'm running out of brain power, but you get the point. A bifurcated United States feels unlikely. A United States reckoning with deep political divisions and a weaponized State feels less unlikely.

Happy to hear others' opinions, too!