As much as I want violent revolution, you'd be foolish to think it'll ever be viable in the United States...

As much as I want violent revolution, you'd be foolish to think it'll ever be viable in the United States, a state with a high tech military, a militarized police force, both full of far right wing reactionaries.

I believe that you're basing that assessment on unsound assumptions.

Read up on the Russian revolution, the army was part of the revolution.

I don't see the US military ever joining our side.

The Russian army was the most backward and reactionary force, till World War I.

Only after they were annihilated in the war. For the US military to rebel, you'd need a serious streak of horrible losses - like the Tet-Offensive but continous and reoccuring or like the Battle of Kasserine Pass 1943.

This tbh. You need a military full of scared conscripts, not ideology fuelled bodybuilders

The Russian Empire was a supremely reactionary state, with an army led the aristocratic ruling class and a vast population of illiterate peasants who'd never even heard of Marx. Until the ruling class caused so much hunger and death that the people weren't willing to take it anymore - then suddenly all those conservative peasants swarmed their landlords and lynched the parasites whilst waving red flags, and the soldiers shot their own officers. Material conditions trump ideology.

So, an accelerationist approach would be supporting the Trump administration's push for war with Iran? The US military would be humiliated.

Although, the quickest way to gain the support of the American people, cucked as they are, is to rahh rahh rally the people behind the flag.

No, because Iran cannot threaten the US and it would not be total war. You'd need to get the US to fight a future China with a decent navy or something apocalyptic like that to achieve the necessary level of societal collapse.

That's why they continue to remove conscription in western countries. The only country which I remember introduced conscription recently was Sweden.

Porky wants a middle-sized mercenary army for interventionistic warfare for resources and securing of trade routes.

Only in the long run in asymmetric warfare, maybe (for which the Iranians are training). The regular Iranian forces would be utterly crushed within a week from air and missile attacks.

USA never puts boot on the ground before the way hasn't been already cleared by air strikes and heavy artillery. They do so since World War 2.

Iran can cut the oil trade route and fuck up the global economy pretty good.

America spends more on the military than the rest of the earth combined. The only way to stop them is the Posadas way.

Spending doesn't equal efficiency though, I'd imagine a lot of it goes into guerdon, pensions, facilities, services and generally buying overpriced equipment - military-industrial complex is a thing.

The EU all together spends significantly more than Russia but that's because Russia pays their soldiers less.

Do you see a war as bloody and disastrous for them happening to the US armed forces anytime soon? Also, reminder that the Czar's control of mass media was not nearly refined as Porky's is today.

These two understand.

Remember the Russian revolution spread to the British, American, French, German and Japanese armies thus the term Bolshevik disease.

never heard about this, source?

The Kriegsmarine were a tad infamous for it. Though I don't have any source links at the moment.

(OP)
Revolution in the West through civil war is not possible today. The United States has the largest and most powerful military in history, and it includes nuclear weapons. A viable revolutionary alternative, is a long-term project of building a dual-power in opposition to the state in local cities and communities, such as the project proposed by Bookchin.

That's not to say that force is not a tangible reality that must be dealt with militarily, but the social circumstances of the contemporary West necessitate that we adjust our strategy of defense to this reality. Consider, for example, the strategy of defense utilised by the PKK as well as the SDF in Rojava:

"The YPG and YPJ adhere is to the principle of legitimate self-defense (as does the HPG guerrilla army in North Kurdistan), according to which all military activity is of a reactive nature. When the forces are attacked, they retaliate but they also leave open the possibility of a political engagement.

"Our theory is the theory of the rose, a flower that defends itself," said Cinar Sali of TEV-DEM. "Every being has to create methods of self-defense according to its own way of living, growing, and connecting with others. The aim is not to destroy an enemy but to force it to give up its intention to attack. Guerrilla fights discuss this as as a defensive strategy in a military sense, but it works in other areas as well. It's a method of self-empowerment. The YPG and YPJ attribute great meaning to defense. National armies serve the state, but they leave the people without defense."" - Revolution in Rojava

iirc some Brits rebelled and took over Calais and the government quickly paid them off. Was sparked by solidarity from the Christmas Truce.
They started rotating the troops when they realised both armies were starting to get pally and could do something crazy like start marching backwards.