How will USA split?

Post Reply New Topic

If the United States of America collapsed like the Soviet Union, what would be the aftermath and how will the country be split? I think it's really possible that we'll collapse, if much unlikely.

The Old Soviet Union was more analogous to the British Empire at its height then it was to the modern U.S.A..

The great powers of Western Europe(Britain, France, Portugal, Italy, Netherlands) had colonial possessions on other continents. Similarly Russia under the Czars expanded Russian rule into northern and central Asia. The Communist overthrew the Czars and inherited the Russian Empire- but renamed it "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" to make it sound like a voluntary union- when it was really just a continuation of Russian rule over other subject nationalties in both Europe and in Asia.

Each of the colonial powers of western europe lost their colonies in the first couple decades after WWII in the third world independence movement. Then with the collapse of Communism the soviet republics broke away from the Soviet Union in much the same way circa 1990.

The modern Russia Republic that is west of the Ural Mountains (ie in Europe, and not in Asia) is "Russia proper". The equivalent of England in the British Empire. The governing part of the old empire, and the homeland of ruling ethnic group. The part of the modern Russian Republic east of the Urals (also known as "Siberia") is the equivalent of Australia (an empty wilderness, rich in minerals, and a good dumping ground for convicts). Former Republics such as Kazahkistan, Uzbekistan, Turkomen, Armenia, Georgia, and Azebijan, are the equivalent of places in the British Empire like Egypt and Kenya (Britain's old Afro Asian colonies) which as with the British empire broke away to become seperate independent countries.

The USA would not come apart in quite that way. We split in two during the Civil War. But the only colonial territories we had are like the Phillipines (granted independence a long time ago), or like Puerto Rico (quite small relative to the "mother country").

I am in total agreement with naturalplastic - the history of the USA is so completely different from the colonial era that had spawned the Russian Empire, and hence the Soviet Union.
But if there was a split in America, I could only think it would grow out of the political lines between the blue and red states, with the more socially conservative red states blaming their poverty and backwardness on the blue states, which they see as out-of-touch elitists.

I don't think the Red states would let the Blue states leave. They get too much tax subsidy from the Blue.

Of course the blue states wouldn't secede; I was thinking of the red states getting the idea in their heads to do just that.

I never even considered that. They need the welfare too much and then they wouldnt be able to force thier beliefs on Blue states.

I always wonder why conservatives complain about urban living while all economic growth and prosperity occurs in the cities.

I can't speak for conservatives, but most people I meet who identify as rural or country are very elitist about it. I'm always hearing how country people do everything better than city people; who are too soft and senseless.

They are certainly better at taking government money from their city cousins and complaining about welfare even as they exploit subsidies and free federal services.

You've got the framework for a split already. Just move to a looser union between your states and you would be most of the way there. You might see some of the states split up further too - in particular, upstate New York seem to have a hankering to abandon NYC and Long Island, and the liberal cities of Texas and Florida might want to split from the rural areas.

But to begin with, if the federal government collapsed then I think the states would take full control of themselves, and then share sovereignty in an EU-like system. Maybe invite Canada and eventually Mexico into it too.

I'm very rural and that's not my belief.Of course we can do some things better,but it has do do more with the lifestyle.I wouldn't wouldnt expect someone that lives in an apartment in NYC to know how to split wood,or even what type of wood burns best.City people can do other things better,like driving in heavy traffic.
I'm thinking of the old children's story,County mouse and City mouse.
As for rural people getting more benefits,there are no good paying jobs in most rural areas.

Some people know how to split and stack cordwood and how to drive in traffic. That's all just biography. Turns out city mouse and country mouse have the same genes and can travel.

But I think people think exclusively of WIC and TANF and so on. They don't tend to see the FAA system that supports all those Gulfstream and Citation bizjets with 1% zipping out to Aspen for the weekend as the Federal freebie that it is, or the massive subsidies for agriculture.

In Arkansas in 2014, for example, 781 soybean growers took $37,343,582 in taxpayer dollars in subsidies from Uncle Sam. 533 rice growers took another $28,875,172. Livestock, corn and cotton were other big, big takers--and then there was the $158,629,908 that went to Arkansas farmers in federal disaster relief.

Welfare recipients in the city have no idea how to get that kind of money. To find anything like that in the city you have to go down to Wall Street and look at the sweet deals people like Donald Trump get when they lose big time.

Oh sure agri gets a helping hand,it's the only income in most rural areas.Pull the rug out from under it and there goes most of your rural jobs.Im sure that my state isn't the only one that gets these government benefits.As for disaster relief,you'd just have to be here for one of the disasters.Like tornados,droughts,floods and massive ice storms,army worms.The last big ice storm took out almost all the power grid here in NW AR.Even the phone towers,radio etc...There wasn't even landline phone service.I was out of power for two weeks,some longer.Im sure the cost of repair was astronomical.Then drought put farmers in a serious bind one year.If it wasn't for a helping hand many might have went under. We are one of the worlds largest producers of rice,so I see nothing wrong to a certain extent in helping family farmers.Nothing for Tysons and Cargill,I don't support handouts to big agri corporations.They have padding they can fall back on.
I do agree that there are crooked deals and handouts that probably shouldn't be handed out.But there is corruption everywhere.
Wouldn't a large urban area also get disaster relief if it was needed?

"... I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee..."
-- from Gen 12:3

Using the above passage as a pretext, some Christians believe that the US will split, as a consequence for dividing the land of Israel.

Neo-Confederate types are just chewing on the bit for the day the south breaks away when America disintegrates. Real patriots.

The concept of dividing Palestine/Israel actually originated with the United Nations. After WW2, the UK which had been in charge of the area as the colonial power couldn't figure out how to handle Palestine, the Arabs wanted to drive the Jews into the sea and the Jews wanted the entire Biblical Land of Israel. King George VI was happy to turn the mess over to the newly formed UN and let them take the blame. The UN came up with a map that basically gave the coast to the Jews and the inland area to the Arabs. (IIRC, it's been a long time since I've seen a map of the proposal.)

The Arabs attacked the Jews afterward, aiming to drive the Jews into the sea and thus resolve the issue. I've read that some experts at the time gave the Jews around a 1 in 3 chance of winning. A lot of people thought that the Arabs, who vastly outnumbered the Jews, would easily destroy the Jews. The Jews won anyway.

The end result was what is commonly known as the "1967 Line", with Egypt in charge of Gaza, Jordan in charge of the West Bank, and the new State of Israel in control of the central coast of Palestine, the Negev, and a strip along the Lebanese border. The division has remained pretty much the same for 70 years, except for Jewish settlements in the West Bank and the annexation of West and Central Jerusalem.

In 1967/73 Israel occupied, but did not annex, Gaza, the West Bank, the Golan, and the Sinai. The idea was to use the land as a bribe for a peace deal. It didn't work, except when Sadat agreed to take back the Sinai in exchange for demilitarizing the Sinai/Israel border. He got murdered for it, and after that the only attempt was the Two State Solution of 1993, which worked until around 2000.

But no, the USA did not divide Israel, the UN did.