The other issue is the layout of the country politically. I have seen people throw around maps for what the countries that would come out of that look like, and it always comes back to the same problem at least from my view as a historian. That being, Leftyland has NO connected border, no resources, no/little arable land, hell even fresh water would be a problem outside of a handful on the Great Lakes.
Rightyland on the other hand would still have all of the above and even have some major metropolitan areas (Red metros are rarer, but still exist. See: Wichita, Oklahoma City, San Diego, etc)
History shows that Leftyland is doomed from go due to the border-gore alone, which will just raise tensions that much further.
OT: I agree with your overall point. The near future is going to suck, but I feel that all of the people going 100% doom are just scared and buy into the Lefts "End of History" argument, which assumes a totally static world that never changes. Such assumptions have been the ruin of more than can be counted in history, because much like a vacuum, Nature abhors static.
Commieland is literally split not just among north/south but the Midwest is like its own barrier. The Midwest would most likely just be neutral leftyland where they wouldn't want to participate in any of it - that would make it near impossible for the left to do much good.
Where is our military the most strongest? Texas is one but where else is it?
The Dakotas have the majority of the country's ICBM stockpile (at least those that are ready to launch at any time, don't know about the reserve warhead stockpile). If Texas asked, both Dakotas would join without a second thought. If it really came down to fighting, I expect a shit ton of fighting would be done over that stockpile.
Re: Balkanization:
The other issue is the layout of the country politically. I have seen people throw around maps for what the countries that would come out of that look like, and it always comes back to the same problem at least from my view as a historian. That being, Leftyland has NO connected border, no resources, no/little arable land, hell even fresh water would be a problem outside of a handful on the Great Lakes.
Rightyland on the other hand would still have all of the above and even have some major metropolitan areas (Red metros are rarer, but still exist. See: Wichita, Oklahoma City, San Diego, etc)
History shows that Leftyland is doomed from go due to the border-gore alone, which will just raise tensions that much further.
OT: I agree with your overall point. The near future is going to suck, but I feel that all of the people going 100% doom are just scared and buy into the Lefts "End of History" argument, which assumes a totally static world that never changes. Such assumptions have been the ruin of more than can be counted in history, because much like a vacuum, Nature abhors static.
Commieland is literally split not just among north/south but the Midwest is like its own barrier. The Midwest would most likely just be neutral leftyland where they wouldn't want to participate in any of it - that would make it near impossible for the left to do much good.
Where is our military the most strongest? Texas is one but where else is it?
The Dakotas have the majority of the country's ICBM stockpile (at least those that are ready to launch at any time, don't know about the reserve warhead stockpile). If Texas asked, both Dakotas would join without a second thought. If it really came down to fighting, I expect a shit ton of fighting would be done over that stockpile.