7 ms·

Just out of (actual) curiosity: is the culture divide now strong enough that dissolution of the Union is a possibility? If so, why? If not, why not?

DoctorOW 2y ago
No, because the resources are owned by the United States regardless of how much the people like/dislike the United States, to leave the United States you have to physically leave it. You can't just announce your land is part of some other country. Sure, you could try and fight Civil War 2, but remember all the might of the US Military soldiers/weapons/intelligence/etc. belong to the United States side. You have a 2nd amendment right to form this opposing militia but you'd have to outspend the US Military using your own resources.
- HaZeust 2y ago
  "Property of" is an abstraction quickly lost when the chips are down; there is no "Essential" property of something, and your honoring of such an idea (or lack thereof) is a direct reflection of your beliefs and values; and, more importantly, your motivations.
- Galacta7 2y ago
  This would assume that there is consensus on what the "United States" is. If a significant portion of the US Military feels differently, then a civil war is inevitable. This is what basically happened in the actual American Civil War, as a number of U.S. officers and soldiers formed their own forces (under their new Confederate government) to fight against the United States.
  - eric-hu 2y ago
    My civil war knowledge is limited. Are you aware of what happened to larger assets like cannons and warships? I imagine today these would be far more of a deciding power than troops.
    - Galacta7 2y ago
      My understanding is that the Confederacy did seize federal armories, navy yards and other military depots located in the South, which would have supplied a non-insignificant amount of small arms and canons. But most of the antebellum industrial capacity for manufacturing more was in the North, so the Union always had a strategic advantage there. In terms of warships, the CSA did capture and convert existing Union ships in Norfolk, Virginia (despite the Union's efforts to scuttle them as they withdrew). A good number of ironclads were also constructed or purchased from England. With the remaining being commissioned and put into operations by the CSA itself during the war. Interestingly, this also included some very early submarines, which is I think the first time they were used in warfare. That said, the CSA was never able to effectively break the Union's naval blockades, and battles by the opposing armies were far more decisive in the war's outcome. Particularly in the strategically decisive Eastern Theater of the war.
stego-tech 2y ago
I think we're very nearly there, and this could be the tipping point based on how things shake out. If we take Trump et al at their word, then the US economy is going to violently shudder under the weight of unreasonable tariffs, mass deportations, tax cuts on the obscenely wealthy, and a ramming through of unpopular policies that he proclaims (absent evidence) will fix a given problem. The man is a salesman, and he's good at selling lies to the desperate. So what happens if he goes so far that the United States loses or jeopardizes its global dominance? The same states that voted heavily for him would be the first impacted, with massive job losses and higher costs. Coastal states and cities wouldn't be too far behind, with higher costs tempered somewhat by proximity to logistics hubs, and unemployment would be more limited due to the higher concentration of jobs. That is, until our economic dominance falters, at which point our heavily-built-up services industry is likely to fracture and collapse in on itself under the weight of competition from countries like India and China. All of which is to say that, yes, it's a potential outcome that the United States does dissolve in some fashion, as some states seek to preserve their power and economic control even as the Federal Government loses its mind. Now then, do I personally think this is the outcome? No, not really. We lack debt to spend frivolously on deficit financing, so there goes that easy out. The stock market is not the economy, and workers will quickly realize that when stocks skyrocket and they're all laid off 2008-style, which would be bad for those with the most to gain (billionaires and Private Equity). I still think there's enough backstops in place to prevent runaway collapse and dissolution... ...although the biggest one of all is a divided Congress. If the GOP gets a trifecta (Executive, both Legislative chambers, and SCOTUS), then there's nothing stopping the full suite of plans from being implemented post-haste, at which point the music very suddenly stops and everyone realizes how screwed we are. Our prior backstops, our allied countries, cannot be depended upon with a President that is vocally supportive of Russia and while they're dealing with their own populism issues. All in all, my read is that while things are about to get really bad, they're not likely to be maximum bad, if that makes sense. The current world order has always been fragile post-Cold War, and this might be the time for a grand realignment. It'd be a shame to lose our dominance, but no empire lasts forever.
- rozap 2y ago
  While this seems like a fairly rapid doom and gloom scenario if you think about it in the context of a single term, one has to wonder about what happens in 4 years. He had no problem trying to subvert previous elections. With all branches of government falling in line, it seems like he'll have plenty of time to do as he pleases. So I don't think this is all that far fetched if we look at it as a decade or two process. Obviously he'll die at some point but I imagine he'd appoint a similar successor. But Americans knew this because of Jan 6, so it's what we deserve I guess.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
cryptonector 2y ago
No. For many many reasons, not the least of which is that an amicable split seems extremely unlikely, and so does a civil war. Next question.
latentcall 2y ago
Yes I absolutely think so. It won’t be a total dissolution, but I would expect coastal states especially on the West Coast to band together and leave the union. This would only happen in my eyes if Trump consolidated power and attempts to extend his term indefinitely OR/AND Trump, being as vengeful as he is, attempts to get back at blue states via federal laws and orders. Some may say “no, to secede you need approval and they will say no!”. Okay, but in this scenario why would states with the GDP the rest of the union relies on just ask nicely? A Trump government threatened individual liberties everywhere and he’s vindictive enough to concentrate on blue states. Check the news today about Newsom’s special session. Plans already under way.

DoctorOW 2y ago

No, because the resources are owned by the United States regardless of how much the people like/dislike the United States, to leave the United States you have to physically leave it. You can't just announce your land is part of some other country. Sure, you could try and fight Civil War 2, but remember all the might of the US Military soldiers/weapons/intelligence/etc. belong to the United States side. You have a 2nd amendment right to form this opposing militia but you'd have to outspend the US Military using your own resources.

HaZeust 2y ago
"Property of" is an abstraction quickly lost when the chips are down; there is no "Essential" property of something, and your honoring of such an idea (or lack thereof) is a direct reflection of your beliefs and values; and, more importantly, your motivations.
Galacta7 2y ago
This would assume that there is consensus on what the "United States" is. If a significant portion of the US Military feels differently, then a civil war is inevitable. This is what basically happened in the actual American Civil War, as a number of U.S. officers and soldiers formed their own forces (under their new Confederate government) to fight against the United States.
- eric-hu 2y ago
  My civil war knowledge is limited. Are you aware of what happened to larger assets like cannons and warships? I imagine today these would be far more of a deciding power than troops.
  - Galacta7 2y ago
    My understanding is that the Confederacy did seize federal armories, navy yards and other military depots located in the South, which would have supplied a non-insignificant amount of small arms and canons. But most of the antebellum industrial capacity for manufacturing more was in the North, so the Union always had a strategic advantage there. In terms of warships, the CSA did capture and convert existing Union ships in Norfolk, Virginia (despite the Union's efforts to scuttle them as they withdrew). A good number of ironclads were also constructed or purchased from England. With the remaining being commissioned and put into operations by the CSA itself during the war. Interestingly, this also included some very early submarines, which is I think the first time they were used in warfare. That said, the CSA was never able to effectively break the Union's naval blockades, and battles by the opposing armies were far more decisive in the war's outcome. Particularly in the strategically decisive Eastern Theater of the war.

stego-tech 2y ago

I think we're very nearly there, and this could be the tipping point based on how things shake out. If we take Trump et al at their word, then the US economy is going to violently shudder under the weight of unreasonable tariffs, mass deportations, tax cuts on the obscenely wealthy, and a ramming through of unpopular policies that he proclaims (absent evidence) will fix a given problem. The man is a salesman, and he's good at selling lies to the desperate. So what happens if he goes so far that the United States loses or jeopardizes its global dominance? The same states that voted heavily for him would be the first impacted, with massive job losses and higher costs. Coastal states and cities wouldn't be too far behind, with higher costs tempered somewhat by proximity to logistics hubs, and unemployment would be more limited due to the higher concentration of jobs. That is, until our economic dominance falters, at which point our heavily-built-up services industry is likely to fracture and collapse in on itself under the weight of competition from countries like India and China. All of which is to say that, yes, it's a potential outcome that the United States does dissolve in some fashion, as some states seek to preserve their power and economic control even as the Federal Government loses its mind. Now then, do I personally think this is the outcome? No, not really. We lack debt to spend frivolously on deficit financing, so there goes that easy out. The stock market is not the economy, and workers will quickly realize that when stocks skyrocket and they're all laid off 2008-style, which would be bad for those with the most to gain (billionaires and Private Equity). I still think there's enough backstops in place to prevent runaway collapse and dissolution... ...although the biggest one of all is a divided Congress. If the GOP gets a trifecta (Executive, both Legislative chambers, and SCOTUS), then there's nothing stopping the full suite of plans from being implemented post-haste, at which point the music very suddenly stops and everyone realizes how screwed we are. Our prior backstops, our allied countries, cannot be depended upon with a President that is vocally supportive of Russia and while they're dealing with their own populism issues. All in all, my read is that while things are about to get really bad, they're not likely to be maximum bad, if that makes sense. The current world order has always been fragile post-Cold War, and this might be the time for a grand realignment. It'd be a shame to lose our dominance, but no empire lasts forever.

rozap 2y ago
While this seems like a fairly rapid doom and gloom scenario if you think about it in the context of a single term, one has to wonder about what happens in 4 years. He had no problem trying to subvert previous elections. With all branches of government falling in line, it seems like he'll have plenty of time to do as he pleases. So I don't think this is all that far fetched if we look at it as a decade or two process. Obviously he'll die at some point but I imagine he'd appoint a similar successor. But Americans knew this because of Jan 6, so it's what we deserve I guess.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

cryptonector 2y ago

No. For many many reasons, not the least of which is that an amicable split seems extremely unlikely, and so does a civil war. Next question.

latentcall 2y ago

Yes I absolutely think so. It won’t be a total dissolution, but I would expect coastal states especially on the West Coast to band together and leave the union. This would only happen in my eyes if Trump consolidated power and attempts to extend his term indefinitely OR/AND Trump, being as vengeful as he is, attempts to get back at blue states via federal laws and orders. Some may say “no, to secede you need approval and they will say no!”. Okay, but in this scenario why would states with the GDP the rest of the union relies on just ask nicely? A Trump government threatened individual liberties everywhere and he’s vindictive enough to concentrate on blue states. Check the news today about Newsom’s special session. Plans already under way.