The potential breakup of the United States wouldn't happen neatly along state lines. The borders of almost every state are rural and conservative. Look at Oregon, where tons of counties are pushing to become part of Idaho. You'd see the same thing happen all over the country during a secession. The people living in the hundreds of miles between the cities have greater common cause with each other than they do with the urban populations within their own state.
So what do our two new nations look like, geographically speaking? Definitely not like the state electoral map. Probably a lot more like our county electoral map: a sea of red with a handful of blue population centers.
So why exactly would a nation comprised of 90% of the land mass of the former USA ever tolerate the existence of a tiny spider web nation crisscrossing borders and dominating coastal ports?
If there ever was a split, I guarantee you that you'd see the hubs of "civilization" get cut the hell off from the rest of the state in areas that are predominantly red outside of the urban enclaves. Chicago would be expunged from the rest of Illinois, Portland would be cut off from the rest of Oregon, et cetera.
Which would be fine by me, because the one thing that the cities don't have is self-sustainability. Cut off the daily influx of food products to the shops and bodegas everywhere and slap up barricades to keep them from pulling a mass exodus. The liberals would literally eat themselves, because we all saw how well the CHAZ worked out. All it would take is one nudge to push them over into anarchy.
I've actually been working on a map for the US and Canada that would split into reasonable new states, with regional alliances, almost all of which would have ports, with no enclaves, based on political alignment, geography, and local economy.
The potential breakup of the United States wouldn't happen neatly along state lines. The borders of almost every state are rural and conservative. Look at Oregon, where tons of counties are pushing to become part of Idaho. You'd see the same thing happen all over the country during a secession. The people living in the hundreds of miles between the cities have greater common cause with each other than they do with the urban populations within their own state.
So what do our two new nations look like, geographically speaking? Definitely not like the state electoral map. Probably a lot more like our county electoral map: a sea of red with a handful of blue population centers.
So why exactly would a nation comprised of 90% of the land mass of the former USA ever tolerate the existence of a tiny spider web nation crisscrossing borders and dominating coastal ports?
Oh for a while it would be out the goodness of their hearts.
Once they start exporting their crime even more than they already do it would be a quick and bloody "war"
If there ever was a split, I guarantee you that you'd see the hubs of "civilization" get cut the hell off from the rest of the state in areas that are predominantly red outside of the urban enclaves. Chicago would be expunged from the rest of Illinois, Portland would be cut off from the rest of Oregon, et cetera.
Which would be fine by me, because the one thing that the cities don't have is self-sustainability. Cut off the daily influx of food products to the shops and bodegas everywhere and slap up barricades to keep them from pulling a mass exodus. The liberals would literally eat themselves, because we all saw how well the CHAZ worked out. All it would take is one nudge to push them over into anarchy.
As another Idahoan, please give us backup against the infestations in Boise and Sun Valley. We need you. Service guarantees citizenship.
I'm in Eagle, want to grab a drink and commiserate?
I've actually been working on a map for the US and Canada that would split into reasonable new states, with regional alliances, almost all of which would have ports, with no enclaves, based on political alignment, geography, and local economy.
It's not perfect, but I think it's a start.