First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Should America be balkanized for world peace and stability?
420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/23/17

runec wrote:


Nasigno wrote:
I dunno, I think California would fail pretty quickly when its suddenly they don't get water or electricity from other states.


and those states would not get the income from that water or electricity. Trade is a two way street.

California also has the coffers to make drastic changes if it really has too ( even if they're too stupid to do so right now ).


Not really, one is an actual necessity. You can live without money, you cannot live without water or electricity. The sheer loss of that would cause more problems than it is worth to argue against. States with their needs would have a far upper hand in dealing than California would by a large margin.

Not to mention the financial system would crash the moment this whole divide thing happen, so their coffers would be functionally useless at that point and time. Nobody will trade in USD if there is no USD anymore. So they'd have to be backed by some other currency, and who knows at what exchange rate they'd humor giving to California in the first place.

3054 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / NY
Offline
Posted 6/23/17 , edited 6/23/17
Not unless you want to ditch the concept of a democratic republic entirely.
12 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 6/23/17
That would essentially undermine the very concept of the United States. This is supposed to be a country that believes "all men are created equal." Such a separation would mean that one group of people or one ideology considers itself too good to live along side the others. Not to mention that the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression, which would be nullified by the forced removal of individuals of differing opinions.

Another problem is the constantly changing nature of society. Just because such divisions may make sense now does not mean that they would do so in the future. If a large conservative group appeared on the West Coast or a large liberal group appeared in the South, then by your reasoning these states would have to split again, resulting in continued social disruption rather than the peace and stability you seek.

If you want to look at it from a religious perspective, most religions (including Christianity - the predominant religion in the U.S.) stress the importance of helping your fellow man. Therefore, it could be argued that such a division is tantamount to abandoning people in need, whether that need is food, money, or knowledge.

Ultimately, I think that if the U.S. was eliminated as a unified body, it's principles would go with it. Those principles have helped to guide the United Nations as well as most of the Western Hemisphere, and I don't see anything short of chaos coming from their loss.
35333 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/23/17

Rujikin wrote:
You said the middle and south. We would join up and work together pretty quickly. The south has HUGE shipyards in Georgia, Louisiana and Texas. There would be no landlock and we would control the oil flowing out of Canada and Texas.


Texas would be fine. Georgia and Louisiana are two of the most federally dependent states in the union though. Is Texas going to pick up their welfare tab? Plus. our oil production is landlocked, there are no shipping lanes to Alberta. You get it by pipe or rail and that's it. Which means it has to go through other non-southern states. You're also forgetting that California produces oil as well.

Texas could continue to rely on oil exports. They could also, without federal oversight, just rape the gulf of Mexico until they start a war with Mexico, each other or simply just Deep Horizon themselves.


35333 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/23/17

Nasigno wrote:
Not really, one is an actual necessity. You can live without money, you cannot live without water or electricity. The sheer loss of that would cause more problems than it is worth to argue against. States with their needs would have a far upper hand in dealing than California would by a large margin.

Not to mention the financial system would crash the moment this whole divide thing happen, so their coffers would be functionally useless at that point and time. Nobody will trade in USD if there is no USD anymore. So they'd have to be backed by some other currency, and who knows at what exchange rate they'd humor giving to California in the first place.


Unless you need that money for your state to import something else *it* needs and I sincerely doubt there's a single self sufficient state in the union. California also exports a massive amount of produce. The rest of the country is more dependent on California for food than California is on it. Hell, the world is dependent on California for a lot of types of fruits and veggies.

California would be fine. Texas would be fine. Florida and New York probably as well.

Everyone else would be a sliding scale from "This is bad" to "gasoline cannibals".

Posted 6/23/17 , edited 6/23/17
That assumes the U.S is the only one that would invade etc. As for the "I don't like the president, impeach", that's petty squabbling and if it's not about the president they'll find other things. This would also mean trillions of dollars evaporate from the economy and plunging the world into a pretty serious global recession.
420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/23/17

runec wrote:


Nasigno wrote:
Not really, one is an actual necessity. You can live without money, you cannot live without water or electricity. The sheer loss of that would cause more problems than it is worth to argue against. States with their needs would have a far upper hand in dealing than California would by a large margin.

Not to mention the financial system would crash the moment this whole divide thing happen, so their coffers would be functionally useless at that point and time. Nobody will trade in USD if there is no USD anymore. So they'd have to be backed by some other currency, and who knows at what exchange rate they'd humor giving to California in the first place.


Unless you need that money for your state to import something else *it* needs and I sincerely doubt there's a single self sufficient state in the union. California also exports a massive amount of produce. The rest of the country is more dependent on California for food than California is on it. Hell, the world is dependent on California for a lot of types of fruits and veggies.

California would be fine. Texas would be fine. Florida and New York probably as well.

Everyone else would be a sliding scale from "This is bad" to "gasoline cannibals".



"Massive" amount of nothing would be the more accurate answer then. You need water for produce too. A tech sector is worthless without power, you cannot do anything without it. And it's not like California is made of a "ready able" force to fight the adjacent states. They'd get walked on the moment they crossed the border.

I'd bet on seeing people rioting and turning California to Mad Max well before the adjacent states turned. Especially given California would also splinter the moment that happened just because of people tired of the cities running their state. So if anything it'd fail internally quickly then external factors would finish it off.

I'd say your states with large cities that have the majority voice would fail quicker than anywhere else in the United States, just because of the built up dealing of one or two cities making policy for the whole state till this point.
19862 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 6/23/17 , edited 6/25/17

Rujikin wrote:


runec wrote:

The coasts would largely be fine I would think as any place with or near a port city would keep relying on international business. Some of the middle and most of the south would probably end up as Mad Max like hellscapes were bands of roving cannibals fight over gasoline and child brides.

The Amish would shrug and keep going about their day.


You realize that the Middle and South make most of the food and oil right? We would be getting rid of the financial and tech industries.

The coasts would be begging us for food, water, and gasoline. We could wreck them with our pricing.


also relies that large Blue cities don't make the entire state.. wile NYC is blue, the rest of the state is red, and without the blue city NY state would be better off. So Yes lets see how the city does wen the rest of the state tells it to go fuc^ it self. Being even in NY the red parts are the ones creating all the food and resources, and without the red parts NYC would claps in on its self without its needed resources. Materials and food farmers, lumber, stone, metal = red. inner city = blue. companies that need the material.. but we don't need them....
lawdog 
44825 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 6/23/17 , edited 6/25/17

runec wrote:


Rujikin wrote:
You said the middle and south. We would join up and work together pretty quickly. The south has HUGE shipyards in Georgia, Louisiana and Texas. There would be no landlock and we would control the oil flowing out of Canada and Texas.


Texas would be fine. Georgia and Louisiana are two of the most federally dependent states in the union though. Is Texas going to pick up their welfare tab? Plus. our oil production is landlocked, there are no shipping lanes to Alberta. You get it by pipe or rail and that's it. Which means it has to go through other non-southern states. You're also forgetting that California produces oil as well.

Texas could continue to rely on oil exports. They could also, without federal oversight, just rape the gulf of Mexico until they start a war with Mexico, each other or simply just Deep Horizon themselves.




Louisiana gets robbed by the Feds on oil & gas revenues and offshore leasing for exploration and development. If Louisiana keeps the money from the offshore leases, the state is suddenly in great shape.

Plus there's this thing called "the Mississippi River". Perhaps you've heard of it? The Port system for Southern Louisiana is one of the largest ports in the world, handles, depending on the year, between 55-70% of all US grain exports.

Louisiana has the only deep water offshore oil port in the country. 13% of America's daily consumption of of oil passes through the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP).

So instead of Louisiana collapsing, instead it'll be the equivalent of Dubai, without the Feds taking all the money, and then giving so little back. Throw in the control of the Mississippi River, all the refineries, Louisiana will be on the freaking gravy train.

Texas, of course will make out very well, and has a number of really good ports as well.

California?!? ROFLMAO!!!!

Why? Because without federal interference, most Southern states will get rid of their illegals post-haste. Meanwhile, California will be overrun, and without the federal government, Cali will have to pay for all its dependent classes. Good luck with that. All while going batshit insane with over-burdensome and absurd regulations and restrictions. Cali will collapse.

As to the OP's troll notion...it's ridiculous. Hitler and Stalin would have loved the idea, however.
lawdog 
44825 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 6/23/17

MasterBismuth33 wrote:

I think this person is a Zionist Jewish troll which is the racist type of Jew. This person is likely hired to troll people to upset them or manipulate them. I suggest ignoring her or him. This person is basically calling for the destruction of America and that is not right. Typical Zionist Jew.

A lot of Zionist Jews are hired to troll people on the internet.


Bah, with a blatant name like that? Troll, yes, Jewish, high liklihood not.
35333 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/24/17
Crips, all my notifications re-notified, was there some moderatin' going on here?


Nasigno wrote:
"Massive" amount of nothing would be the more accurate answer then. You need water for produce too. A tech sector is worthless without power, you cannot do anything without it. And it's not like California is made of a "ready able" force to fight the adjacent states. They'd get walked on the moment they crossed the border.

I'd bet on seeing people rioting and turning California to Mad Max well before the adjacent states turned. Especially given California would also splinter the moment that happened just because of people tired of the cities running their state. So if anything it'd fail internally quickly then external factors would finish it off.

I'd say your states with large cities that have the majority voice would fail quicker than anywhere else in the United States, just because of the built up dealing of one or two cities making policy for the whole state till this point.


I would logically assume that if the states fractured it would realign itself north/south with maybe a few going Third Party(tm) or even begging to join Canada. If we're going to go full Warring States period things would be super ugly. Its unlikely anyone would have a functional military as that's ultimately a federal organization and could fall apart into an internal war. If we assume that state defense / reserves remain loyal to their states it becomes a numbers and equipment game. Who has the most people and is sitting on the most bases? Or worse yet, who is sitting on the most silos?

Half the states don't even have an active state military. California and Texas have both military and naval reserve, such as it is. But the only state bordering California that even has an active state force is Oregon. In terms of equipment, again, California and Texas have a considerable number of military and naval bases. Virginia too, obviously, has a goodly number of major installations.

If people start seizing silos and subs though we're all going to die. -.-



lawdog wrote:
Louisiana gets robbed by the Feds on oil & gas revenues and offshore leasing for exploration and development. If Louisiana keeps the money from the offshore leases, the state is suddenly in great shape.

Plus there's this thing called "the Mississippi River". Perhaps you've heard of it? The Port system for Southern Louisiana is one of the largest ports in the world, handles, depending on the year, between 55-70% of all US grain exports.

Louisiana has the only deep water offshore oil port in the country. 13% of America's daily consumption of of oil passes through the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP).

So instead of Louisiana collapsing, instead it'll be the equivalent of Dubai, without the Feds taking all the money, and then giving so little back. Throw in the control of the Mississippi River, all the refineries, Louisiana will be on the freaking gravy train.


Louisiana receives more federal money than it pays in and is one hurricane away from being leveled without federal assistance. You're also assuming that all the resources are state owned instead of privately owned. Is Louisiana going to seize them? Do you think anyone is going to do business with Louisiana if it seizes assets from private industries? Most those offshore platforms and deep wells are owned by BP, Exxon and Chevron.

And who are they going to cut trade deals with internationally after they inevitably sink to Saudi Arabia in terms of human rights? -.-



lawdog wrote:
Why? Because without federal interference, most Southern states will get rid of their illegals post-haste. Meanwhile, California will be overrun, and without the federal government, Cali will have to pay for all its dependent classes. Good luck with that. All while going batshit insane with over-burdensome and absurd regulations and restrictions. Cali will collapse.


Right, it's all the illegals and regulations. Good luck with that. See how many businesses stick around when they start pulling that shit and how well their agriculture industry does when it loses its workforce. >.>




808 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / PA, USA
Online
Posted 6/24/17
I would be broken-hearted. I have friends and family strewn across the North, South, and elsewhere. As much as I predict another Civil War, I am not looking forward to it.
21555 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / M / In
Offline
Posted 6/24/17
So you think instead of one centralised government controlling a nuclear stock pile is bad for world peace and 50 separate counties each with their own smaller nuclear stock pile is better for world peace?

on a related note
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Avs0EgSxhQE&t=419s
285 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F
Offline
Posted 6/24/17
In the long run every state will eventually be doomed simply because they won't have a united army large enough to fend off a attack from China,and Russia.



First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.