Lets discuss a hypothetical simulation of politics and economics:
What if every American state and territory suddenly decided to succeed from the Union at the exact same time?
Why and how this happens is irrelevant. All that matters is that they are now in the blink of an eye, independent.
Can the states create their own unions after said independence?
Yes. (Though, a simulation of where that wasn't possible would be extremely interesting)
if all the states suddenly seceded then the US economy would collapse. Prove me wrong, Veeky Forums.
Sorry, I should've asked this with my previous question, but can they create alliances/be annexed by other nations?
There wouldn't be a US economy to collapse.
> can they create alliances/be annexed by other nations?
correct
The states would probably form regional ties, and the ones without allies would be annexed by the the growing powers.
A starting list for the tied nations:
>Most of the confederate states, excluding NC, VA, FL, and TX. NC and VA would probably join a mid-atlantic union, while FL could sustain themselves if they avoided drifting to anarchy
>CA, Oregon, and WA would create a pacific union
>Nevada would probably be annexed by California if they gave a fuck
>Montana and Idaho union
>Wyoming, Colorado, Dakotas, Nebraska union
>Kansas-Missouri union
>AZ, NM, TX union
>New England Union, including NY and PA
>NC, VA, Delaware, and Maryland form the Mid-Atlantic Union
>West Virginia and Kentucky are annexed and split between Mid Atlantic Union and the Midwest Union
>Ohio, Iowa and Indiana form the Midwest Union
>MI, WI and MN form the Great Lake Union
>Oklahoma would be annexed by Texas
>Not sure about Alaska, I hesitate to say Canada would annex it because they'd most likely follow the UN "no wars of conquest" guideline as ridiculous as it is.
>Not sure about Hawaii, possibly remain independent as some kind of tax haven
Feel free to criticize and revise.
>Florida
>not drifting into anarchy if given independence
You're going to have to pick one. Otherwise a good post.
If the Floridian government didn't step in to put militia force in the inner cities, anarchy would ensue. Places like Miami, Orlando, etc. would become divided by gangs (as well as other cities) though Tallahassee and Panama city regions might be annexed by Georgia.
You're right. I live in Florida and it's one step away from being out of control.
I find it impressive that no one has yet bantz'd the OP for writing "succeed" in place of "secede". On the one hand, doing so is pedantic, yet perhaps not. We have good evidence to suppose that the OP really is confused on the point, though is meaning is plain.
"Secede" is the word you want OP, meaning a permanent political separation.
It's probably why the old people come up to NC during the summers, as well as the weather.
There would probably be a huge war, like every other time a state or number of states have tried to secede.
What about Illinois?
fuck me, I forgot about it. I was struggling between the Great Lake Union or Midwest Union, what do you think?
Might as well make a worldbuilding thread on Veeky Forums, this isn't Veeky Forums.
picking out spelling errors isnt considered banter anywhere
Every single state with the possible exception of texas would reintegrate back into the US. Basically every single state depends on being in the US.
>Nevada would probably be annexed by California if they gave a fuck
Yea naw. Those hippies couldn't take us if they tried. We are more aligned with utah/Arizona/southwest states.
Also list doesn't have utah. Utah would be fairly strong with nevada and arizona. Possible Idaho and Colorado. Them Mormons man.
They instantly rebind together. Probably in regional blocs.
1. cali is a southwest state
2. over 9000 billion spics could take you and every state west of the mississippi if they really wanted to
Commerce between the states is vast and intricate, and is absolutely vital for their operation as entities. It keeps the people working and fills the state government's coffers.
In the event of a simultaneous 50-way secession, interstate commerce would be throw into disarray because the interstate commerce clause of the constitution would no longer guarantee contracts across state lines and provide a means of enforcement and recourse to insure you aren't screwing over the guy who you're selling your shit to, and he isn't screwing you over in turn, even though he may be many states away.
It might coast on inertia for a bit but sooner or later people will figure out there's nothing stopping them from screwing each other over for short-term gains, there would be a crisis of confidence in commerce between states, trade grinds to a halt, and then everything else does
KENTUCKY IS MIGHTY FINE ON ITS OWN
>Fort Knox
>Missile silos
>Ohio Riiver canal
On top of that there's enough mid-sized cities to create its own political atmosphere of stability.
This is the other problem, who the FUCK gets control of the nuclear arsenal?
Is there just mass, multilateral disarmament just because nobody knows where the keys went?
Are there massive militia skirmishes over who controls them?
Now you understand the infinitely more realistic danger of a fracturing of russia.
I'd say wherever the missiles are located thats who gets em
I agree if we're talking about the more rural and disorganized unions mentioned here , but places where capitalism reigns supreme in NY, CA, and TX would still see interstate ties. Due to the insecurity across the country (they are different nations, after all) there would be more expensive methods of travel by air or shipping through the Panama Canal. Despite this, major global companies have to sell somehow.
This also brings up the questions of territorial claims. I wouldn't put it past Guantanamo, Canal Zone, etc. to either be annexed or claim autonomy, but it would be interesting to see what the states would do in order to maintain a stake in valuable choke points, ESPECIALLY the Canal Zone.
Back to the trading, IF the choke points were never put under state control, foreign markets would likely be more lucrative. IF they were somehow put under state control, we would see economic growth centered around that particular state/union.
In this scenario, which state is most likely to go full Mad Max?
You're right. I was tired when I wrote that, and still am.
Eh, it's using current knowledge to predict a future history. Even more, Veeky Forums also covers "Humanities".
That's not even a question- Kansas.
Assuming no outside forces have any effect on this situation, I imagine it would eventually fall back into another federal government
Americans may be stupid at times, although we have all the things required for a functioning single entity. Aside from a change in capital and border disputes/annexations, not much in the long run would happen I believe
The Northern Part of Illinois might go with the Great Lakes. The only difference between Northern Illinois and Southern Wisconsin is football.