Nukes are not useless in a civil war. They just turn it into an uncivil war.
The term "civil war" carries a lot of baggage, but do you think some random jagoff white half-Frenchman from New York actually had any real bonds or ties to some random black regiment south Texas 3rd generation freeman?
No. They were fighting to kill the other side. It's fun to ascribe nobility to war, but not really. A civil war is a rival nation taking form inside your own nation. It is the same as if you were to go to war with a completely different nation that shares significant borders. And a nuke holds the same purpose as it always did: It's a "surrender the fuck now, or you're all dead" button.
The goal of a civil war is not to take (or re-take, depending on perspective) land, it's to remove the threat of the other side interfering with your new (or existent, on the other side) nation. The land would be nice, of course, but you're not warring for a land grab, you're warring to kill as many of them as possible until they surrender all their ruling rights to you. That's what civil war is.
The problem is, using nukes would fuck up both sides. People of both sides would die. Clearly the one controlling the nukes would, or at least should know this. It's not like nukes would know which people are on what side and discriminately kill.
The left won't get any real benefits from using nukes. They would lose tons of followers quick if that were to happen, and it would accelerate a potential uprising response against them.
There exist many who are unironically akin to Farquaad of Shrek. "Some of you may die, but that's a sacrifice that I am willing to make." Some of those people are also known to be in positions of power. Some of them have, on record, in the past, called drone strikes on US citizens.
Justified droning or not aside, there are people in power who do not view the plebs as having value as living people, who are demented, insane, or psychopathic, who believe that ruling through fear is the right way to go.
Also, you're getting some baggage mixed up: A civil war is not an insurrection. They're different events. You seem to be arguing on nuking an insurrection or a riot, not a civil war. Battle lines have not been drawn, territory not declared/claimed. That is not a civil war.
In the US civil war, there were people in the North, and in the South, who objected to the rules and decisions of their respective leaderships. There were even turncoats! But the North's army didn't check for dissident views before marching through a city in the south. The South's army didn't verify political views before firing on an encampment in the north. It wasn't an insurrection, it was a war, and if you were in the enemy's territory, you were the enemy. That makes it easy to call a bombing run on the area. How do you know which side they are? They're not your territory, and you didn't order any troops to march there. Thus, they're ALL enemies. Even ones sympathetic to your cause. Because it's war. And war sucks.
Nukes are not useless in a civil war. They just turn it into an uncivil war.
The term "civil war" carries a lot of baggage, but do you think some random jagoff white half-Frenchman from New York actually had any real bonds or ties to some random black regiment south Texas 3rd generation freeman?
No. They were fighting to kill the other side. It's fun to ascribe nobility to war, but not really. A civil war is a rival nation taking form inside your own nation. It is the same as if you were to go to war with a completely different nation that shares significant borders. And a nuke holds the same purpose as it always did: It's a "surrender the fuck now, or you're all dead" button.
The goal of a civil war is not to take (or re-take, depending on perspective) land, it's to remove the threat of the other side interfering with your new (or existent, on the other side) nation. The land would be nice, of course, but you're not warring for a land grab, you're warring to kill as many of them as possible until they surrender all their ruling rights to you. That's what civil war is.
The problem is, using nukes would fuck up both sides. People of both sides would die. Clearly the one controlling the nukes would, or at least should know this. It's not like nukes would know which people are on what side and discriminately kill.
The left won't get any real benefits from using nukes. They would lose tons of followers quick if that were to happen, and it would accelerate a potential uprising response against them.
There exist many who are unironically akin to Farquaad of Shrek. "Some of you may die, but that's a sacrifice that I am willing to make." Some of those people are also known to be in positions of power. Some of them have, on record, in the past, called drone strikes on US citizens.
Justified droning or not aside, there are people in power who do not view the plebs as having value as living people, who are demented, insane, or psychopathic, who believe that ruling through fear is the right way to go.
Also, you're getting some baggage mixed up: A civil war is not an insurrection. They're different events. You seem to be arguing on nuking an insurrection or a riot, not a civil war. Battle lines have not been drawn, territory not declared/claimed. That is not a civil war.
In the US civil war, there were people in the North, and in the South, who objected to the rules and decisions of their respective leaderships. There were even turncoats! But the North's army didn't check for dissident views before marching through a city in the south. The South's army didn't verify political views before firing on an encampment in the north. It wasn't an insurrection, it was a war, and if you were in the enemy's territory, you were the enemy. That makes it easy to call a bombing run on the area. How do you know which side they are? They're not your territory, and you didn't order any troops to march there. Thus, they're ALL enemies. Even ones sympathetic to your cause. Because it's war. And war sucks.