You're not kidding. Doing state-by-state battle over jurisdiction and the right of each state to create its own laws would be ... interesting. I'd expect it to be very destructive overall. Not saying it would necessarily lead to an end of the union, but it's a step.
Seems to be a pattern, lately, and specific to abortion as well. The ends justifying the means, regardless of collateral damage.
Make such assistance illegal so that Facebook doesn't have a choice in the matter. Facebook certainly has the political power[money] to successfully lobby for such a legislative change, but it doesn't have the will to do so.
We'd have to figure out how the nukes are divided up, however. Though what is it they say about possession being 9/10ths of the law...
The Lord's our shepherd, goes the psalm When Alabama gets the bomb.
~ Tom Lehrer, "Who's next"
Well, the USSR broke up without too much fuss about who got the bombs; as far as I can see, only Russia was interested. But I can imagine a Divided States of America in which both successor states have nukes. I suspect they'd be reluctant to attack one-another. They might even both choose to disarm, depending on the nature of the break-up.
> both successor states
Why would there be only two?
Sure. You could abolish the Union entirely, and just have states. I don't think it's obvious that that would be a terrible thing - either for USAians or for the rest of us. My sense is that a lot of USAians don't really want a Union. I suspect that many USAians think the Union was effectively a coup.
The question remains: how do you spread the nukes around?
My guess is that the residents of Wyoming could do without nukes. They have a lot of land-based nukes, that serve no defensive purpose (for Wyoming); they just make Wyoming a target. I wonder which state might decide that they need nukes, to defend themselves from someone outside North America?
Second question: how you divide up the military equipment that isn't nuclear - ships, tanks, rockets, planes etc. All that equipment carries a heavy cost - it has to be maintained, replaced, tested etc.
Also a bunch of other examples where the countries aren't necessarily the best to live in, but pretty much everyone is happy they split - Yugoslavia, India/Pakistan, West Pakistan/East Pakistan. Singapore/Malaysia (to be fair Singapore were kicked out).
A split of the US among the crazily politicised duopoly wouldn't be the end of the world. One part would be reactionary as hell and move time back (on social and ecological issues), the other.. who knows.
The US in many ways legitimizes itself as a government in the traditional of the "western european project," by evoking the ritual, esthetic, ideals, and historical lineage of ancient Greece and Rome. From names and architecture, to values and ritual, there is an establishment of ties, real or imagined to be real.
On one hand, this works fantastically to mentally cement the US in the greatest of greats, but we cannot ignore the visibly obvious - that ancient Greece and Rome declined and fell. By drawing a parallel to ourselves(us-centric obvs) we draw a parallel to our own decline. We we're honest with this comparison, we have to be honest about the demise of these governments too. It's not possible to separate the too.
There's a fair argument that it never ended; the South was defeated, but never gave in. Or at least, part of the South didn't. Come on, isn't that the meaning of the Confederate flag? Doesn't it mean "Fuck you, Union"?
/me a brit, I don't have a dog in this race. I'd just feel massively more comfortable if the most powerful country in the world knew who it was, what it's policies are, and who it's friends are. If they can't figure that out, and have to break up, that's miles better than the USA being balanced 49% to 51% on every policy and every federal court judgement.
I'd prefer it if the USA split, rather than having a schizophrenic USA, with the biggest army in the world, that can't agree who it is, what it's economic policy is, or what it's foreign policy is. Schizo USA is screwing everyone else up.
I like the goal you're looking at, I just don't think that's a viable path from where we're standing; which is to say in reality a broken US gives you more potential chaos, not less?
I've come to believe that "nation" is somewhat of a weird and artificial concept and so that in many ways it almost doesn't make sense to compare e.g. the US and Russia. And so, while "no lopsidedly strong nation" would be optimal, from here I do think that US in its current form is a pretty good hedge against the others, for the most part.
Yes, to me (not from USA) it looks as if would get worse for most USAians if the Union broke up. Especially marginalized people. But I think that for the rest of us, it would be cool if the US government would agree to work together, or agree to divorce. It's shit, being in the blast-radius of a marital crisis that's lasted 30 years.