3 ms·

great, then California could take Oregon and Washington as well, since they're "anarchist states" and all. New York would likely follow suit. Colorado would p

great, then California could take Oregon and Washington as well, since they're "anarchist states" and all. New York would likely follow suit. Colorado would probably join with the west coast, leaving Texas to carry most of what was left of the country. Don't mess with Texas, which is to say that they don't want to be the ones paying for everything. Now we have 3 countries that can feed themselves, pay for what they need, with coastal access, and we have what's left of the United States. Not a great scenario if you follow it to its conclusion.

YarickR2 6y ago
Putin will absolutely drown in champagne, seeing this unfolding.
082349872349872 6y ago
> with coastal access At a finer grain, looking at the top 20 CSAs[1], many are non-coastal, but to my guesstimates only 20% are not on a navigable river: 7 8'000'000 Dallas-Forth Worth 11 6'900'000 Atlanta–Athens-Clarke County–Sandy Springs (160 km to Columbus) 13 5'000'000 Phoenix-Mesa 17 3'600'000 Denver-Aurora (Boston-Worcester-Providence is almost as large as my entire country, and has far better water transport options.) > ... and we have what's left of the United States. Not a great scenario if you follow it to its conclusion Why not? While "Civilian aircraft and aircraft engines" probably takes a hit, the remaining US should continue to have its major exports: 1 Food, beverage and feed: $133 billion. Soybeans were the number one product in this category, with sales of $22 billion, followed by meat and poultry at $18 billion. 2 Crude oil, fuel and other petroleum products: $109 billion. (and I'm pretty sure all three of those categories are things the chinese are currently importing?) [1] by population. Anyone have a source for GDP? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area [2] https://money.cnn.com/2018/03/07/news/economy/top-us-exports/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2018/03/07/news/economy/top-us-exports... (2017, anything more recent?) Colorado I wouldn't believe: unlike the west coast, they're tied into the national pipeline network. (On the gripping hand, it, like many other states, is on the western electrical grid.)
- mullingitover 6y ago
  > Why not? While "Civilian aircraft and aircraft engines" probably takes a hit, the remaining US should continue to have its major exports: The US would lose all the nuclear weapons on the west coast in that deal, which would result in some exciting geopolitical changes. CalOreShington would have a bunch of ballistic missiles, nuclear subs, and long-range bombers. For the first time the US would have a potent, nuclear-armed non-ally adjacent to its border. There would be hostilities resulting from the federal government demanding compensation for the vast amounts of federal land that would be lost, and the inevitable "come and take it" reply. The remaining states should certainly hope that they don't lose Colorado in that deal, because they'd be losing NORAD to boot.
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    That's not how it's worked in the past[1]. I was explicitly going by CSAs instead of states to avoid some of those issues[2]. From personal experience, I'd say it's better to live in a non-nuclear[3] country, because the local economy can be directed to positive sum consumer and export goods instead of negative sum MAD. So if Colorado were to leave (with our already unlikely assumptions, yet more unlikely due to network[4] effects) I would recommend only doing so politically, allowing the US to continue with basing rights (following the model of the Rest Of The World). and then there's the small matter of who takes responsibility for a large national debt... [1] indeed, ever since the unpleasantries of the 1860s I believe it's US military doctrine to base people in regions other than the one they're from. [2] specifically, I believe the US would commence hostilities well before losing Kitsap and San Diego, let alone Pearl Harbor (because as long as we're in cloud cuckoo land, I'd bet hawaiians, no matter their attitude towards the mainland or fondness for Las Vegas, would prefer being stuck with the west coast than with anyone east of Stockton, and they don't have any economic argument for complete independence.) [3] as others in the thread have noted, there is a non-negligible chance that third parties would be willing to provide an umbrella. My democracy has managed to survive the last 500 years with a policy of "we're no threat to you unless you cross our border" and indeed we even apologised to the last country we invaded (they replied no hard feelings). [4] with navigable waterways (and some credible way to deal with harbour mining and general naval interdiction?) money will get one through times of no food better than food will get one through times of no money. Airlifts, as Qatar has discovered, are expensive. Edit: found GDP by CSA, population was a good proxy (but inland goes up to 25% of top 20) https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/drilldown.cfm?reqid=70&stepnum=40&Major_Area=7&State=7&Area=XX&TableId=501&Statistic=1&Year=2018&YearBegin=-1&Year_End=-1&Unit_Of_Measure=Levels&Rank=1&Drill=1&nRange=5 https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/drilldown.cfm?reqid=70&stepnum=4... inland CSAs 7 Dallas-Fort Worth 0,5 T 11 Atlanta--Athens-Clarke County--Sandy Springs 0,4 T 15 Denver-Aurora 0,3 T 16 Phoenix-Mesa 0,3 T 20 Charlotte-Concord 0,2 T so top 15 CSAs with navigable access only represent about 11 T of GDP, and if they (and I doubt the following would change much if we added coastal CSA's below the top 20) went their own ways the remaining US would presumably still be globally in 2nd place, with an economy roughly double that of the japanese.

YarickR2 6y ago

Putin will absolutely drown in champagne, seeing this unfolding.

082349872349872 6y ago

> with coastal access At a finer grain, looking at the top 20 CSAs[1], many are non-coastal, but to my guesstimates only 20% are not on a navigable river: 7 8'000'000 Dallas-Forth Worth 11 6'900'000 Atlanta–Athens-Clarke County–Sandy Springs (160 km to Columbus) 13 5'000'000 Phoenix-Mesa 17 3'600'000 Denver-Aurora (Boston-Worcester-Providence is almost as large as my entire country, and has far better water transport options.) > ... and we have what's left of the United States. Not a great scenario if you follow it to its conclusion Why not? While "Civilian aircraft and aircraft engines" probably takes a hit, the remaining US should continue to have its major exports: 1 Food, beverage and feed: $133 billion. Soybeans were the number one product in this category, with sales of $22 billion, followed by meat and poultry at $18 billion. 2 Crude oil, fuel and other petroleum products: $109 billion. (and I'm pretty sure all three of those categories are things the chinese are currently importing?) [1] by population. Anyone have a source for GDP? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area [2] https://money.cnn.com/2018/03/07/news/economy/top-us-exports/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2018/03/07/news/economy/top-us-exports... (2017, anything more recent?) Colorado I wouldn't believe: unlike the west coast, they're tied into the national pipeline network. (On the gripping hand, it, like many other states, is on the western electrical grid.)

mullingitover 6y ago
> Why not? While "Civilian aircraft and aircraft engines" probably takes a hit, the remaining US should continue to have its major exports: The US would lose all the nuclear weapons on the west coast in that deal, which would result in some exciting geopolitical changes. CalOreShington would have a bunch of ballistic missiles, nuclear subs, and long-range bombers. For the first time the US would have a potent, nuclear-armed non-ally adjacent to its border. There would be hostilities resulting from the federal government demanding compensation for the vast amounts of federal land that would be lost, and the inevitable "come and take it" reply. The remaining states should certainly hope that they don't lose Colorado in that deal, because they'd be losing NORAD to boot.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  That's not how it's worked in the past[1]. I was explicitly going by CSAs instead of states to avoid some of those issues[2]. From personal experience, I'd say it's better to live in a non-nuclear[3] country, because the local economy can be directed to positive sum consumer and export goods instead of negative sum MAD. So if Colorado were to leave (with our already unlikely assumptions, yet more unlikely due to network[4] effects) I would recommend only doing so politically, allowing the US to continue with basing rights (following the model of the Rest Of The World). and then there's the small matter of who takes responsibility for a large national debt... [1] indeed, ever since the unpleasantries of the 1860s I believe it's US military doctrine to base people in regions other than the one they're from. [2] specifically, I believe the US would commence hostilities well before losing Kitsap and San Diego, let alone Pearl Harbor (because as long as we're in cloud cuckoo land, I'd bet hawaiians, no matter their attitude towards the mainland or fondness for Las Vegas, would prefer being stuck with the west coast than with anyone east of Stockton, and they don't have any economic argument for complete independence.) [3] as others in the thread have noted, there is a non-negligible chance that third parties would be willing to provide an umbrella. My democracy has managed to survive the last 500 years with a policy of "we're no threat to you unless you cross our border" and indeed we even apologised to the last country we invaded (they replied no hard feelings). [4] with navigable waterways (and some credible way to deal with harbour mining and general naval interdiction?) money will get one through times of no food better than food will get one through times of no money. Airlifts, as Qatar has discovered, are expensive. Edit: found GDP by CSA, population was a good proxy (but inland goes up to 25% of top 20) https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/drilldown.cfm?reqid=70&stepnum=40&Major_Area=7&State=7&Area=XX&TableId=501&Statistic=1&Year=2018&YearBegin=-1&Year_End=-1&Unit_Of_Measure=Levels&Rank=1&Drill=1&nRange=5 https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/drilldown.cfm?reqid=70&stepnum=4... inland CSAs 7 Dallas-Fort Worth 0,5 T 11 Atlanta--Athens-Clarke County--Sandy Springs 0,4 T 15 Denver-Aurora 0,3 T 16 Phoenix-Mesa 0,3 T 20 Charlotte-Concord 0,2 T so top 15 CSAs with navigable access only represent about 11 T of GDP, and if they (and I doubt the following would change much if we added coastal CSA's below the top 20) went their own ways the remaining US would presumably still be globally in 2nd place, with an economy roughly double that of the japanese.