Russia and China would probably give weapons away and provoke a conflict in order to finally neuter their largest strategic competitor. Just like our CIA.
Because they have free trade with the rest of the US, and are supported by the wealthier parts.
And I’m not just talking about random countries, but countries like China or Russia.
Which is why, on reflection, it seems absurd that the US would allow the red states to separate without signing a treaty that prevents them from having a standing army. And it’s not like they’re going to be able to keep it hidden - they’re not exactly going to be hard to surveil.
You’re basically positing that, while leaving, the neoconfederacy is openly hostile to the remaining US. There is no way that this will be a secret to the US; it’s why we’re letting them leave. There is no way we’re going to let them become a hostile military power sharing our new largest border. They can have an amicable separation, but it had better stay amicable or they’ll get bombed into the stone age.
OK, well, dream on then.
Where are your cites for your predictions of a future hypothetical?
Then you’ll have to also include in the separation a couple of states that will split apart. Eastern Washington and Oregon would want to be part of the new shithole nation, I’m sure. In fact, were such a thing to happen the West Coast might just split from the Union as well. California plus the western halves of Oregon and Washington would be quite capable of striking out on their own. Add Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada and we’re golden. Utah would be an interesting case. Where would their loyalties lie?
This prompted a thought that any kind of velvet divorce with, say, Texas and Oklahoma will require the US to pass on the new independent nation’s constitution. Which we won’t as it is presently, uh, constituted.
There are tens of millions of non-Trumpists in states which voted for him and we’re not going to forego them just because they’re in an asshole state where they’re the minority.
Actually, I think it would be a peaceful separation with the US happily giving over large chunks of their military to the new country. You are the one who has constantly beat the drum that the OUSA would maintain all of its military might. No country will agree to not have a standing military without first losing a war. You’re proposing the OUSA letting go of the RUSA agreeing to defend the RUSA against all enemies they might ever make without getting any tax revenue to support the military defending them.
The only way I would guess this happens is that the reddest states I would guess that 20 states would form the RUSA AK, ID, MT, ND, SD, WY, NE, KS, OK, TX, MO, AR, LA, MS, TN, KY, AL, GA, SC, FL and then the 18 bluest states would agree to let them go. Some of the Red states I’ve left behind for geographic reasons would probably vote against it as well as the states the believe compromise is possible. Once the OUSA has agreed to let them go the negotiation would be very close to one of equals.
That is a great point. Once the constitution was amended there would be very little reason for the east and west coast to stick together. Splitting the US into 3 countries would make a great deal more sense.
Utah I left with the OUSA in my last post since they would be sharing a huge border with the OUSA and from a practical standpoint neither side would want that. I still think that is AZ, CO, NM and NV all went one direction UT would have to get drug along. There would probably be more religious freedom in the OUSA even if a lot of their other political points were lost. I’m not sure the math changes if the country got split in thirds.
There’s also an inherent bias creeping into the discussion, which is that some states would be “leaving the US”, and that the remaining states would still be “The US”. That’s not necessarily so. It’s entirely possible that we could see the individual states all agreeing to just dissolve the United States as it is currently formulated, and make up two or more entirely new countries.
Call a new Constitutional Convention, and literally everything is on the table.
If things get bad enough that any of this is likely, then this is also a real possibility.
How much of your Blue State GDP are you willing to trash by curtailing that free trade?
How much GDP do you think Canada and Mexico would be willing to trash? That level of trade alone still keeps them in decent money.
And how often have you seen China or Russia invading Canada and Mexico? Even if they wanted to, they don’t have the transport capacity to pull this off. Russia had its hands full just taking over the Crimea. No way are they going to invade Kentucky, no matter how poor you manage to make them.
Thanks, I didn’t realise that it was such a difference economically. I expect it would encourage them to try a race-to-the-bottom in safety and environmental deregulation and cost-cutting so they could attract businesses from the Blue Zone. The effect of that would be to drain state coffers even more quickly, and you could see it being an incentive for both those reliant on state services or things like state-run university, health and education systems to leave. But, if they’ve gerrymandered properly then that bears them no political pain at all.
It’s not the Blue States that would be doing so. This is pretty much entirely up to the Red States that are leaving as to what the relationship they have with the remainder is.
Physically, not often. But that’s not the only manner in which one country can assert dominance over another.
But it’s the only one in which the “Will we let them have tanks” debate makes any sense.
Why would they curtail their own trade? This is all in the context of your post:
We would need to make sure that they don’t fail as a state. Whether militarily or economically, they’d be at the mercy of other countries that currently pose no real threat.
My point is, unless you go out of your way to harm them economically by limiting their trade, then this is a non-issue. They’ll still have more money than most other countries in the world. They won’t be as well-off as before, but they won’t be on the verge of failure, either.
Wait, so you’re arguing that the red states are such noxious monsters that the US agrees to let them go just to be rid of their influence, and then, knowing that the fascist, inhumane warmongers are going to have unchecked influence, happily hands over a substantial percentage of our stateside military equipment to them and says “Here you go - feel free to bomb our capital anytime! You know where it is!”
Yeah, no. And if the red states refuse to secede unless the US puts a gun to its own head and places the trigger in the red states’ hands, then they’re not leaving.
And while I did say that the US would keep military bases in Neocon, I don’t recall saying that they would ever fight Neocon’s battles for them. Sure they’d mobilize to prevent say China from moving in and taking over, but if say Mexico decided it wanted Texas back, well, keep in mind that the reason we let them leave is wholly because we wanted them gone.
The US doesn’t need to let ALL the red states go - just enough of them that the conservatives never have political influence again. Also I can’t see them cutting the country in half (and I really can’t see them abolishing the entire country just to be able to enact health care across the entire country - that doesn’t even make sense), so I imagine they’d maybe let KS, OK, TX, MO, AR, LA, MS, TN, KY, AL, GA, SC, and FL go, as a single contiguous block, while keeping the northwest states whether they like it or not.
And, again, it would definitely not be in the US’s interest to create a hostile foreign power on their doorstep, give them half their military, and then offer them a hand of equality while knowing that their entire philosophy is that they want to subjugate you. Ha ha ha no. If this split happens Neocon will be anything but equal.
I haven’t brought up tanks, so I’m not sure why you feel the need to badger me with wherever you got that quote from.
In any case, other parts of our military, our navy, our air force and such is used to project power and to protect our economic interests abroad.
I can’t answer that without bashing my head against a wall until all the IQ points drop out. But, maybe you could answer as to why the last president worked to cut the trade to the US as a whole. If you can answer that, then you could probably answer as to why those who share his philosophy would do the same.
We don’t have to go out of our way to do any such thing. I’m sure that they can do just fine failing on their own, pursuing their already proven to be failed fiscal and economic policies.
They’d start out that way. But do you think that Trickle Down, if unchecked by any sane opposition, is going to keep them that way for long?
They don’t have to start on the verge of failure to happily head down that path.
You’re looking at the wrong number. You see “16% of US GDP”, and think, “Goddamn, they’re poor-ass!”
US GDP is currently about 21 Trillion dollars. 16% of that is 3.36 Trillion, which is just about double the GDP of Canada.
Looking up the populations of the “20 reddest” states, I make their total population as about 64 million people, not quite double the population of Canada.
So I suspect they’d be fine. Maybe not, “Light your cigars with $100 bills” fine, but certainly “We don’t actually live in igloos” fine, at least.
Because that particular president was an idiot. I don’t imagine that the economic powers behind the government of this new state will let idiots like that run things. After all, a big point of this is to make a “business friendly” place, so they’ll have an outsized influence.
And if not, so what? Let them fail. Let them come back begging for help. They’ll never learn otherwise.
The powers behind our govt let an idiot just like that run things. It was only wrested from his control due to the people that would wind up in the blue states in such a divide.
Business friendly does not mean economically stable. It means that those with power and connections are able to pillage the land and the people with little interference.
And that goes back to what I originally said. The Blue States will need to support the Red States, just instead of internal transfers of wealth, it will be foreign aid.
I don’t think that they will learn, as we (and I don’t know why I include myself in this, as an Ohioan, I don’t know which way my state would go, but as far as fiscal and economic philosophy goes, I am including myself in the Blue group) will not tolerate them to be a failed state, and will bail them out of their self inflicted problems.