> You're talking nuclear missiles or chemical weapons fired against San Francisco, Los Angeles, or Seattle from land-based silos in the Dakotas. This is pretty

> You're talking nuclear missiles or chemical weapons fired against San Francisco, Los Angeles, or Seattle from land-based silos in the Dakotas. This is pretty unlikely, if only because the fallout from nuclear weapons launched at the West Coast will blow back over the rest of the country, including over the regions that launch the missiles themselves. There's a reason short-range and battlefield nukes were never used in anger and it has nothing to do with morals. The rest of your point stands. From a global perspective, a break-up of the U.S. is a very bad thing. Aside from the potential civil war here, it also means open-season on any countries that are basically U.S. protectorates (Taiwan, Japan, Israel, and much of Europe are toast); it hands global leadership over to China; it means financial chaos; and it could result in famines and food instability throughout the world (the U.S. is a major food exporter).