There has been talk from time to time of States seceding from
the Union – Red States in particular – but this article brings it to another
level.
If every state of the USA declared war against each other, which would win?
A culture war has been stirred up.Divisions are along predictable lines: racism, police abuse, controversial social issues, and plenty of left vs. right, demographics and regional baggage to clash over as well.And by all accounts, differences and distinctions between people have been intensifying, not blurring and fading away.According to the Washington Post, many Americans have been relocating themselves in one of the 11 distinct areas of the country to live with like minded people.The best way to keep us from fighting the real enemy is to keep us fighting amongst ourselves.But could the culture war ever turn into a real war?Some people actually think so, and it seems the military has been planning for the scenario, too. The potential for economic and societal breakdown is real.
So here are the accounts
of the Second American Civil War, also known as the Wars of Reunification and
the American Warring States Period.
After the breakup many wondered which states would come out in control of the power void created by the dissolution of the United States. There were many with little chance against several of the larger more powerful states. The states in possession of a large population, predisposition for military bases and a population open to the idea of warfare fared the best. In the long term we would look to states with self-sufficiency and long term military capabilities.
After the breakup many wondered which states would come out in control of the power void created by the dissolution of the United States. There were many with little chance against several of the larger more powerful states. The states in possession of a large population, predisposition for military bases and a population open to the idea of warfare fared the best. In the long term we would look to states with self-sufficiency and long term military capabilities.
9 comments:
If the DC power collapses then many of the states would themselves break up. Author doesn't take this into account.
Most of the blue states are monolithic blue cities surrounded by a very red country side. Without a power in DC all of the large cities will disintegrate: think Ferguson times 100. National Guard won't be a factor since most of them will desert to protect their own families.
Military armories will fall to siege and looting. Like minded communities in close proximity will band together for protection against the gangs of refugees and road warriors.
Only after all that occurs will regional alliances begin to coalesce and stabilize with greatly reduced populations as the ravages of riot, hunger, and disease subside and the survivors regroup.
Unlike recent examples (the Balkans) there will be no US to provide relief from outside. And, with the US down, the rest of the world will spin into chaos. Therefore the likelihood of an attempted conquest by outside powers is minimal in the short run.
Of course some dipshit could decide to start throwing nukes around. If that event enters the equation the whole world will experience a singularity and a roll of the dice. Who knows what will happen then.
Incredibly there are many people who can't wait for this to happen. Think the Cloward-Piven eggheads for example.
I think Pastorius said it a while back: rule-of-law or rule-of-force. You really don't want to experience the latter. You will likely be dead real quick.
Good analysis, Anon.
That is good analysis.
Especially that part about that thing I said.
;-)
JK
LOL
This all assumes that secession has to be immediately followed by war.
18th and 19th century young American civilian men had the stomach for participating in organized violence far away from there homes, I dont believe modern Americans do.
There's really no reason why America cant peacefully divide itself along like-minded regions.
The states voluntarily joined the Union, does it have to be like Islam in that if you decide you want out of the union you must be coerced to stay or killed? Were the states warned about this when they joined?
..... look man, the majority of the people on the coasts, or the blue urban dots, currently want a different type of government than those that live in other areas. We have different expectations for the role governments play in our lives. How does a forced union where no matter which ideological side currently wields a slight majority in DC, about half the people are always upset because our elected leadership does not reflect our values .... make us stronger?
I hate most of the representatives sent to DC by the electorates of New York and California. The people in New York and California hate the people we send to DC to represent us. We're different societies with different values. Both sides have to compromise on most every issue, thus neither side ever experiences a government that enacts policies that match their values. How does this make us stronger?
Imagine a scenario where your government consistently passed legislation and regulations you approved of. Where your like minded representative didn't have to compromise on every issue with someone else's representative with diametrically opposed world views.
It would be interesting to see which regions vision of government produced the best quality of life. True side by side comparisons of the ramifications of unbridled political ideologies.
And even under regional self-rule there's no reason why we couldn't peacefully cooperate on issues such as overseas military action. We could have a military alliance under a joint command where regions voluntarily cooperated, just like we do now with Canada or Britain.
And if you found yourself living in a region where the regional political majority didn't reflect your values you could migrate to another region that did, if that region agreed to accept you.
The founding states of our republic had a lot in common. They even looked the same. They were all controlled by European descendants. They all wanted a government that reflected their values and had their best interests at heart. But things change. The nation has become much more diverse both demographically and ideologically.
Our nation has stopped expanding geographically, but imagine if we had not stopped until we had annexed the entire hemisphere. And the permanent majority of the national electorate had corrupt non-European cultural values and exercised their political control to turn our founders vision of a limited government republic into a socialist state that reflected their values and interests.
Would you consider secession then ?...... because that's exactly how this experiment in democracy has turned out.
Just one lttle question. Who takes the Hispanics the Blacks and all those recent immigrants that have been dumped all over the country without agreement from the states. The reason this is the most important question is that these groups are the ones eating up all revenue the blue states could never provide.
There is no possibility of a peaceful dissolution of the US. Federal power is federal money and federal money is borrowed: monetized by the central bank. Every state is addicted to it.
This why you don't see secession movements at the state level. Each state knows that without the Fed they are Greece. All secession movements for the last fifty years have been at the sub-state level except one in Alaska that went dormant a couple decades ago.
The DC grip on power depends entirely on the Feds ability to borrow and keep the transfer payments flowing. Absent that DC has no real power. It can't conquer the states militarily. The progressives have made a huge miscalculation on this point. They assume national chaos will be a good thing for them, that they will be able to control it. They won't.
Either we get this federal monstrosity under control pronto or we suffer severe consequences in the future and the future is at hand.
Addicted to Federal money for the function of their "government offices", schools, police, fire dept. etc.
But not for their actual economic output.
So in other words, they are addicted to the money coming in, but there is not necessarily a problem with actual productivity.
Debt is only debt if you can hold the person to it. If you have not legal means to hold a person to the debt, then the lender if fucked not the debtor.
Look at China. We owe them a lot of money, right?
How's that working out for them?
Who are they going to call?
Dog the Bounty Hunter?
Yeah but...
It's not just the federal subsidies, which are bad enough, it's the transfer payments to individuals. Imagine what would happen over the weekend in your neighborhood if, on Saturday morning, the EBT cards quit working. Also, what if the Social Security and disability checks quit coming? Reimbursements to hospitals and doctor's offices dried up?
The addiction to Uncle Sam's credit card is the Achilles heel of every state. It has rendered the 10th amendment moot for all practical purposes.
I see. Goog point.
Post a Comment