The Union is Dissolved: 2010

[Macsporan]

Very large states historically speaking have been held together by the iron fist: Rome, Russia, China, even the British Empire.

The US is the only significant exception, but even here they had a bad few moments in the 1860's when it looked as though the slave-owning south was going to get away. Since then nothing much but there may well be a good amount of luck in this.

History never repeats; or does it?

I quote here an Australian commentator on the US Presidential election:

To the extent that it is moving at all, the American electorate seems to be getting more geographically polarised. Prior to the election, there were 16 states held with margins of less than 3%. Now there are only 11.

The pattern of party support is clear from a glance at a map: Democrats have the north-east and the west coast, the mid-west is marginal, and the Republicans have everything else. It is the Civil War division repeating itself, but with the party labels reversed.

We have here the beginnings of trouble: a geographical division based on ideological differences. If sectional differences were to be further exacebated could this lead to either the red states or the blue secceeding from the Union?

Before dismissing the possiblilty out of hand recall two things: the role of the irrational in human affairs and the fact the the 1860 seccession caught everyone by surprise.

We even have emotional issues to hand: abortion, homosexual marriage and open-ended war in the Middle-East.

A President is elected some time in the near future resolved to ban/legalise abortion/gay marriage and/or bring in the draft to provide cannon-fodder for a conquest and occupation of the Middle-East/withdraw precipitately leaving Israel at the mercy of powerful enemies; and a number of states leave the union rather than have any truck with this godless abomnation/denial of basic human rights.

Which side does so and what happens next? Does war break out and if so who wins and how long does it take and what is the result?

Bring out your darkest prejudices and lets have fun.

[DominusNovus]

Dear Lord, I'd forgotten about this guy. I think he's got to have the lowest post count/day out of any of us (who've actually posted).

[wkwillis]

What makes you think there would be any particular trouble? We could just have a constitutional convention and split up quite amicably.
Blacks in the south east, hispanics in the south west, liberals in the north east, libertarians in the north west, and white conservatives in the middle. No fuss, no muss, no aggravation. Like Czechoslovakia and the 'Velvet Divorce'.
The Civil War was about whether slaves or nonslave owners would be forced to go with the slave owners. That is no longer the case. God knows, if there is one thing the conservatives don't want it's forcing a lot of black people out with them. They don't want us uppity high earning libertarians, either, certainly not the liberals, and while they don't actually mind the hispanics, they certainly don't intend to force them to do anything.
In fact, the only group in America that really wants partition is us libertarians. We would love to stop having to drag the rest of you along with us. No kidding. We don't want to make you do what we tell you to do, so why not return the favor?

[robertp6165]

Very large states historically speaking have been held together by the iron fist: Rome, Russia, China, even the British Empire.

The US is the only significant exception, but even here they had a bad few moments in the 1860's when it looked as though the slave-owning south was going to get away. Since then nothing much but there may well be a good amount of luck in this.

History never repeats; or does it?...

A President is elected some time in the near future resolved to ban/legalise abortion/gay marriage and/or bring in the draft to provide cannon-fodder for a conquest and occupation of the Middle-East/withdraw precipitately leaving Israel at the mercy of powerful enemies; and a number of states leave the union rather than have any truck with this godless abomnation/denial of basic human rights.

Which side does so and what happens next? Does war break out and if so who wins and how long does it take and what is the result?

Bring out your darkest prejudices and lets have fun.

Well, there is in fact a secession movement in the South today. A very small one, to be sure, and nobody takes them very seriously. But from a single acorn grows the mighty oak, as they say. This secession movement would find ready allies all over the West (exclusive of the Pacific tier of States, of course, which are pretty liberal), as they share common conservative values with them (which also explains why the South and the West pretty consistently vote together in national elections). So the idea of a new "Confederacy" consisting of the South, the Great Plains States and the Rocky Mountain States is not totally beyond the realm of possibility some day. Very unlikely, but not totally impossible.

As to what would happen, I find it difficult to believe that the Federal Government could, in this day of television news and instant imagery via satellite, handle it as Lincoln did the 1860 secession movement (by declaring war). For one thing, a few years ago they did surveys among the U.S. military, asking soldiers and marines if they would fire on American citizens if ordered to do so, and the answer was a resounding NO. And the Feds will be constrained by public opinion against taking aggressive action which could result in heavy civilian casualties. And the National Guards of the seceded States would form the basis of a pretty potent military force for the new "Confederacy," so the Feds would not be assured of victory if they did attack.

So, if a negotiated settlement preserving the Union cannot be reached, in all likelihood, the secession succeeds. In the end, you might end up with three countries...the United States (consisting of the Northeast and mid-west); the Confederation (the South, Great Plains, and Rocky Mountain States), and Pacifica (California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii).

[KJM]

Unless I'm reading the post wrong, this looks like future history. AH Discussion isn't the forum for that.

[Brilliantlight]

Well, there is in fact a secession movement in the South today. A very small one, to be sure, and nobody takes them very seriously. But from a single acorn grows the mighty oak, as they say. This secession movement would find ready allies all over the West (exclusive of the Pacific tier of States, of course, which are pretty liberal), as they share common conservative values with them (which also explains why the South and the West pretty consistently vote together in national elections). So the idea of a new "Confederacy" consisting of the South, the Great Plains States and the Rocky Mountain States is not totally beyond the realm of possibility some day. Very unlikely, but not totally impossible.

As to what would happen, I find it difficult to believe that the Federal Government could, in this day of television news and instant imagery via satellite, handle it as Lincoln did the 1860 secession movement (by declaring war). For one thing, a few years ago they did surveys among the U.S. military, asking soldiers and marines if they would fire on American citizens if ordered to do so, and the answer was a resounding NO. And the Feds will be constrained by public opinion against taking aggressive action which could result in heavy civilian casualties. And the National Guards of the seceded States would form the basis of a pretty potent military force for the new "Confederacy," so the Feds would not be assured of victory if they did attack.

So, if a negotiated settlement preserving the Union cannot be reached, in all likelihood, the secession succeeds. In the end, you might end up with three countries...the United States (consisting of the Northeast and mid-west); the Confederation (the South, Great Plains, and Rocky Mountain States), and Pacifica (California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii).


Too many blacks in the south for it to secede. It would start a civil war along racial lines.

[Raymann]

Nah, in all likelihood a new party would form for the South and it would be conservative enough for blacks to join without the stigma of the Republican Party. Socially, blacks are just as conservative as Southern whites and if States Rights are championed economically, the party could get away with any economic platform.

Being Black and from the South I can tell you that the easiest way to demonetize black "leaders" is to just tell people where their from and call them what they are, socialists. You do that and I guarantee you'll get a "Well..." or some doubt. Most people in the South including myself don't want the Union divided but if I feel my rights are threatened by damn Northerners, hell I'll fight and I won't be the only one.

[robertp6165]

Too many blacks in the south for it to secede. It would start a civil war along racial lines.

Blacks and whites in the South are not as racially polarized as you seem to believe. If the secession movement is not racially based...i.e. it is seceding over non-racial issues...the blacks have no reason to oppose it.

[Brilliantlight]

Blacks and whites in the South are not as racially polarized as you seem to believe. If the secession movement is not racially based...i.e. it is seceding over non-racial issues...the blacks have no reason to oppose it.

I have never seen a poll where Blacks trust the state governments more then the Federal government. The Southern state governments have had a history of both slavery and segregation. Everyone knows this and it certainly will hurt any chances of an secession movement.

[Macsporan]

Dear Lord, I'd forgotten about this guy. I think he's got to have the lowest post count/day out of any of us (who've actually posted).

O Dear me. Perhaps I should start a thread on the South wins to the Civil War, or the Nazis win WW II or something original and interesting. God knows no one has ever done anything like that before.

It would be well if the USA broke up peacefully, not least because of the enormous numbers of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons lying around. Imagine what would happen if terrorists got their hands on them?

France and Germany might have to launch a pre-emptive strike to prevent this.

On a serious note the presence of these weapons would probably prevent the outbreak of a second American Civil War as their use would obliterate civilisation in North America and probably many other places besides.

On would hope that reluctance to shed civilian blood might restrain the "patriots" but for those beyond the reach of mercy the consideration that with both sides equally balanced and little hope of outside assistance, the prospects of outright victory would be slim indeed.

The new states would be plagued by lots of terrorism especially from redneck nationalist/fascist groups who would hold their nieghbours responsible for the fall of the USA.

No doubt the socialist/liberal anarchist groups would respond in kind. It would take quite some time for things to settle down.

And of course there is nothing to say that war would not break out as the inheritor of the biggest fragment of the old USA's armed forces tried his luck.

On the other hand if the degree of impatience shown to fellow citizens on this thread is anything to go by perhaps everyone will be happy to see the back of each other.

Further comments? Speculation?

[Dave Howery]

will the US break up someday? probably. As early as 2010? no....

[MerryPrankster]

I have never seen a poll where Blacks trust the state governments more then the Federal government. The Southern state governments have had a history of both slavery and segregation. Everyone knows this and it certainly will hurt any chances of an secession movement.

Darn right, Brilliantlight. I was thinking of creating an AH Challenge based on that idea. WI blacks didn't mistrust the state governments and overly-trust the Feds?

Granted, the Federal government has its own sins. Federal troops suppressed John Brown's uprising, and the Feds enforced the Fugitive Slave Act.

[MerryPrankster]

Dear Lord, I'd forgotten about this guy. I think he's got to have the lowest post count/day out of any of us (who've actually posted).

O Dear me. Perhaps I should start a thread on the South wins to the Civil War, or the Nazis win WW II or something original and interesting. God knows no one has ever done anything like that before.

It would be well if the USA broke up peacefully, not least because of the enormous numbers of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons lying around. Imagine what would happen if terrorists got their hands on them?

France and Germany might have to launch a pre-emptive strike to prevent this.

On a serious note the presence of these weapons would probably prevent the outbreak of a second American Civil War as their use would obliterate civilisation in North America and probably many other places besides.

On would hope that reluctance to shed civilian blood might restrain the "patriots" but for those beyond the reach of mercy the consideration that with both sides equally balanced and little hope of outside assistance, the prospects of outright victory would be slim indeed.

The new states would be plagued by lots of terrorism especially from redneck nationalist/fascist groups who would hold their nieghbours responsible for the fall of the USA.

No doubt the socialist/liberal anarchist groups would respond in kind. It would take quite some time for things to settle down.

And of course there is nothing to say that war would not break out as the inheritor of the biggest fragment of the old USA's armed forces tried his luck.

On the other hand if the degree of impatience shown to fellow citizens on this thread is anything to go by perhaps everyone will be happy to see the back of each other.

Further comments? Speculation?

Actually, I think they were just wondering where you've been. Have you been busy?

France and Germany invading the US to prop up the Federal government? Neither power has the air/sealift capabilty to send significant numbers of troops to the USA to stop it. Germany especially--during WWI and WWII, they had some of the most innovative military doctrines and tactics and now they've been emasculated.

Redneck nationalist/fascist groups? I was unaware such people existed. In PARADE (a magazine that comes in many major newspapers on Sundays), they had an article about the Scots-Irish (the "ethnically-correct" term for "rednecks") and how many urban and "elite" people look down on them/are afraid of them. The "rednecks" may very well be more patriotic than many of those who look down on them, but I don't think that you can really call them "fascist."

[zoomar]

In the modern US, few Americans consider State secession a reasonable avenue for social change or preservation of regional traditions anymore anymore. Since the 1950's the media and most people have come to consider US states little more than departments or provinces within a unitary republic like France. No matter how much people in blue states fear issues like gay marriage, or red ones fear the religious right, I have a hard time seeing a popular groundswell for outright dissolution of the USA over internal political issues. I think the following outcomes are more likely in this order:

(1) No big deal. Americans continue to play by the same rules and agree to disagree. Messy, argumentative, lawyers out the wazoo, protests in the street ... America the way it is now

(2) Continued erosion of state's rights as a concept, accompanied by the gradual marginalization of one side or the other on the national political level -leaving disgruntled losers little option but to emmigrate or begin a campaign of individual terrorism

(3) A Constitutional Convention to restructure the USA as a significantly looser federation of states - allowing each state to enact laws and policies which may vary from federal supreme court rulings - essentially alowing each state supreme court to interpret the US Constitution differently with respect to practice in each state.

(4) Some massive and widely unpopular failure of an widely unpopular federal administration in foreign affairs or war which results in widespread and growing foreign terrorism on US soil, outright war (or "cold war") with some of our major allies in Europe or Asia, and widespread censure of the USA by international courts, the UN, and regional treaty organizations. Perhaps in such a situation - where the actual survival of the "American way of life" as it is perceived in each state is brought about by the real possibility of the world turning on us with teeth, I could see individual states or regional coalitions of states seceeding from the US in an attempt to distance themselves from the Washington Government and/or to seek protection of foreign governments against the Central Government

[Melvin Loh]

I remember back in 1996 a documentary advertised on ABC TV I think about how racially segregated America's cities were, with the possibility of there developing actual separate racially-divided states within America. Didn't watch it though.

BTW, as i pointed out in a previous post at the yr's start, there were actually a fair few blacks who served as armed combatants on the Confederate side during the ACW, well before the North issued the Emancipation Proclamation and began raising outfits like the 1st Kansas, 33rd South Carolina, 54th Maasachusetts and Louisiana CORPS D'AFRIQUE.

[wkwillis]

I remember back in 1996 a documentary advertised on ABC TV I think about how racially segregated America's cities were, with the possibility of there developing actual separate racially-divided states within America. Didn't watch it though.

BTW, as i pointed out in a previous post at the yr's start, there were actually a fair few blacks who served as armed combatants on the Confederate side during the ACW, well before the North issued the Emancipation Proclamation and began raising outfits like the 1st Kansas, 33rd South Carolina, 54th Maasachusetts and Louisiana CORPS D'AFRIQUE.

The first colored troops in the army (unlike the navy which always had colored troops) were the proconfederate and sometimes slaveholding New Orleans troops. After attempting to join the Confederate service and being rejected, they gradually moved to the Union side and fought in Union service.

[Peter]

Remember no nation lasts forever, though 2010 is a bit early...

[wkwillis]

The way to get the US to split up into separate states is to keep people moving towards areas that more match their attitudes. The way to do that is to move symbol analyst jobs outside the cities and make people more mobile in that way. This will happen over the next few years because of the development of telecommunications, specifically the development of OLED wall screens. OLEDs reduce the cost penalty for large area screens because they are just a goop printed on a circuit board, and while the cost of large circuit boards scales with size, it does not scale as the cube of the size like large cathode ray tubes.
When you have 4000 by 2000 pixels in 24 bit color, you have roughly matched the data capacity of the mark one human eyeball. You no longer see a screen, you see a person on the other side of what used to be a wall. You can then work over the Net without the penalty of not 'being there'.
Now we can move workers around the nation, or the world, at their wish. They are no longer geographically bound. What's more, the nonsymbol analyst jobs are overwhelmingly service jobs that can follow the symbol analyst jobs whereever they go. People will go for the cheap housing, the cheap playing areas for their children, and the assortive cultural arrangement of being able to choose their cultural neighborhood in a rural, low land cost environment.
This will take place very quickly. As the richer symbol analysts displace the poorer symbol analysts from the country they will choose to move to the places that were vacated according to how comfortable they are with the fit. I believe that it will break down roughly as I have described. Liberals in the NE drainage pattern, Libertarians in the NW, Blacks in the SE, Hispanics in the SW, and Conservatives in the center. Social Cleansing by realator, sort of like the Quebec/Ontario movement in Canada.
I assume that many rich people will stop being rich because the land price collapse that will accompany this movement will encompass the commercial as well as the residential land values. This of course assumes that the rural areas do not also restrict land use by zoning. This also assumes that people will build instant cities of ten thousand or so, to enable them to set up instant school districts.
I do assume that as the ability to put ten thousand people in one area and have them employed as symbol analysts over the Net will allow school districts to be set up that are lower cost. The primary cost of schools is because the school district is forced to spend far more on the lower level pupils to enable them to at least try to keep up with the higher level pupils. As the assortive movement allows only high level people to move to the instant cities and enroll their children in those schools, the pressure to spend money will drop and school taxes will drop.
Schools will rapidly cheapen and this will reduce school taxes, and school taxes are what discourages communities from allowing housing to be built in their service area. For those of you that are not Americans, America has a policy of making local areas pay for young people and the whole country pay for old people. As a result the local areas are very resistant to building cheap housing because it is used by families with more children than money. Housing for old people is not at present so restricted. Neither is retail or office construction. Retail stores pay sales taxes as well as real estate taxes and are especially prized. Retail taxes in America are levied by local voting districts and are much more profitable than even office buildings, and of course, like office buildings they have no children to educate.
But a community of intelligent people will have schools that are full of intelligent children. They will have the voting ability to restrict 'special education' student services and otherwise reduce costs, as compared to voting districts that have a wider mix of students. Now this is done by assortive movement based on price levels of housing. Since you can build and entire school district full worth of children in one year, and a school to go with it, you can use nondollar methods of assortion. Which is why the real estate value will reduce to the farming value of land.
The farming value of land is presently inflated by the government subsidies. When the symbol analysts move to the country they will replace the farming subsidies and outvote the farmers, so the farming subsidies will decrease and eventually disappear, thus lowering the value of farmland to perhaps 100$ an acre.
This could have happened earlier if OLEDs had been developed earlier. Light fibers were cheaper than cars twenty years ago in terms of bandwidth. All that was needed was a display medium that was not as limited as computer monitors, and now it is becoming available.
So, if OLEDs had been available twenty years ago, would the US have already broken up?

[Brilliantlight]

I remember back in 1996 a documentary advertised on ABC TV I think about how racially segregated America's cities were, with the possibility of there developing actual separate racially-divided states within America. Didn't watch it though.

BTW, as i pointed out in a previous post at the yr's start, there were actually a fair few blacks who served as armed combatants on the Confederate side during the ACW, well before the North issued the Emancipation Proclamation and began raising outfits like the 1st Kansas, 33rd South Carolina, 54th Maasachusetts and Louisiana CORPS D'AFRIQUE.

Try very few, as it wasn't even legal in the Confederacy until 1865. Even then I think none of them actually fought.

[robertp6165]

I have never seen a poll where Blacks trust the state governments more then the Federal government. The Southern state governments have had a history of both slavery and segregation. Everyone knows this and it certainly will hurt any chances of an secession movement.

Who said anything about trusting a State government over the federal government? It is true that the Southern State governments have a "history of slavery and segregation." Leaving aside the obvious retort (that so do the Northern State governments and the Federal Government), it should be stated that we are talking about something that is anywhere from 40 to 140 years in the past today, and will be even farther in the past by the date postulated for the POD (2010). Today, Southern State governments are well representative of all Southern citizens regardless of race. Southern states have a greater level of black participation in all levels of government than any other region of the country today, and it will be even more so by 2010. The fact that you look at the world through 1960s glasses doesn't change those facts.

[robertp6165]

Try very few, as it wasn't even legal in the Confederacy until 1865.

Not actually true. It was completely legal for blacks to serve in the Confederate State militias. Indeed, Tennessee, Lousiana, and some other States passed laws in 1861 to authorize recruitment of free blacks into the militia. And, while it was technically illegal for blacks to serve in the armed forces of the Confederate national government, quite a few did so...Confederate military records do not record the race of the soldier, so it is impossible to know exactly how many. But the fact that Tennessee alone issued over 300 pensions to black soldiers...this beginning in the 1920s when almost all of those who served would have already died...indicates it might have been a substantial number, several thousand at least. It is true that in most cases they served in non-combatant roles...musicians, cooks, hospital orderlies and suchlike...but they contributed to the Confederate Cause by such service.


Even then I think none of them actually fought.

There are actually numerous eyewitness accounts that indicate otherwise.

[Brilliantlight]

Who said anything about trusting a State government over the federal government? It is true that the Southern State governments have a "history of slavery and segregation." Leaving aside the obvious retort (that so do the Northern State governments and the Federal Government), it should be stated that we are talking about something that is anywhere from 40 to 140 years in the past today, and will be even farther in the past by the date postulated for the POD (2010). Today, Southern State governments are well representative of all Southern citizens regardless of race. Southern states have a greater level of black participation in all levels of government than any other region of the country today, and it will be even more so by 2010. The fact that you look at the world through 1960s glasses doesn't change those facts.


I realize both but the Southern states had a long history of being much worse then Northern states for blacks. This makes them more suspicous of state governments. It was the by Federal order that slavery was abolished and segregation was gotten rid of with the Southern states kicking and screaming. The reason the southern governments are well represented by race is because of the federal government not the states.

[Leej]

Very large states historically speaking have been held together by the iron fist: Rome, Russia, China, even the British Empire.

The US is the only significant exception,


:D That's funny. The US was held together more by force then the British empire ever was. It was not held together by force at all. If it was it might still be going to today.

] Unless I'm reading the post wrong, this looks like future history. AH Discussion isn't the forum for that.
Well its not what ASB should be for either though 80% of the topics on there are future history.

[Chris]

Interesting suggestion, but I can't see it happening. Most likerly outcome:

1) far-left govt. elected. Takes away guns, abortion rights for all, etc.

2) people stop listerning to them. Armed resistance to gun-collectors. Discontent in the streets.

3) Military called out - refuses to fire

4) Govt. toppled in small coup. New elections.

Chris

[Richard de Coeur]

:D That's funny. The US was held together more by force then the British empire ever was. It was not held together by force at all. If it was it might still be going to today.


Well its not what ASB should be for either though 80% of the topics on there are future history.

Winston Churchill once made the remark that the deeper we look into the past the further we can see into the future. I suspect that is why a lot of politicians all over the world do not want history taught at schools so people will actually have no idea why things are going wrong, nor how the people we are supposed to trust have squandered our futures.

I doubt that the US will fall apart, but it is a sign of the times the divisions that are appearing within most western nations are being exploited by unscrupulous politicians and media barons like Murdoch, as well as most of the corporate sector, for personal political or financial gain.

The triumphalism of the right since the collapse of the left is now threatening the very fabric of western society. This has allowed the growth of the terrorist threat abroad and political polarisation at home.

In short, the west is doomed. Capitalism is essentially dead, being replaced with a viscious and corrupt corporatism, individual freedom is steadily being replaced with a return to economic serfdom, egalitarian political power structures have been undermined by economic darwinism and free speech is being eroded by politically and religiously correct dialectics.

I am glad I probably wont live long enough to see the final acts in the collapse of the west, but I do fear for my children and grandchildren.

[DMA]

That's only half of the many troubles facing the western world Richard. The main one is going to be drastic changes in population levels. The entire western world is aging. We're not replacing our numbers. In Australia alone, most of the population, thanks to the baby boomer generation, is heading into old age. Within 20 years, those over 60 will outnumber everyone else. The economic strain will be enormous if not nationally/internationally destructive. Then in 40 years time, populations in the western world, will be drastically cut. Some countries are looking at a population cut of 50%.

But wait - there's more! Again I can't speak for elsewhere, but there's going to be a drastic change in the ethnicity of population pretty much everywhere. In Australia we will end up with a population of around 14 million in around 2050. If the trend of reproduction levels is anything to judge by, 6 million will be of European origin, whilst the remaining 8 million will be effective split between 4 million Aboriginals & a similar number of "others".

As the Chinese say - may you live in interesting times...

[DominusNovus]

Good lord, you people are depressing. Look on the bright side! The whole interesting times thing! It'll be like the collapse of Rome, just without the barbarians and loss of infrastructure. :D

...

...

...

Hopefully. :o

[DMA]

Good lord, you people are depressing. Look on the bright side! The whole interesting times thing! It'll be like the collapse of Rome, just without the barbarians and loss of infrastructure. :D


Well depression has nothing to do with it. It's all about basic maths. Unless the child producing generation in the western world don't start fucking their brains out AND produce many offspring, I'm afraid doom is approaching. Europe, of course, won't die out, but Australia, NZ, USA & Canada aren't going to be the countries the we know today.

The one consulation is the the Bush family per se isn't going to be around either. So no third generation of Bush presidents. I guess that's a positive thing :D

[Bill Cameron]

robertp6165 wrote...but they contributed to the Confederate Cause by such service.


I had a napkin handy, so you don't owe me a new keyboard for that one! By the way, Anchor Steam beer makes for a wonderful sinus cleanser.

'Contributed to the Confederate Cause', yeah right. I can just see the usual contribution too...

"Step N' Fetchit! Finish digging that new latrine, boy, and then get my supper ready or I'll beat your n***** ass."

"Sure 'nuff, Boss."

ROFLMAO!


Bill

[Leej]

snipped for your health

And all this is relevant to what I said how?



I don't see declining population as a bad thing, its a good thing. We do have considerable over population these days.
For there not being enough to people to work- meh. You can see it around you today, the world is getting more and more mechanised, factories used to need hundreds of barely trained people now they just need 20 or so computer blokes and mechanics to keep the machines running.
Shops are supposed to going to loose all of their staff except security and customer service in the next 20 years too.

[Saladin]

I'm going to drag this back on track -- well a bit -- and suggest a different starting scenario for a potential division.

Not social issues, but rather, resources. There is a fascinating, if little commented upon division in the US -- basically the western and south western states are net exporters of resources and the eastern states are net importers -- I know its not precise, but close enough for government work, okay.

How about a division based on scarce resources, in particular water -- western and south western states cannot afford to provide water to other locations any more. WHat then?


All the best


Chris

[Straha]

why not a civil war between theocrats and the blue states?

[DMA]

I don't see declining population as a bad thing, its a good thing. We do have considerable over population these days.
For there not being enough to people to work- meh. You can see it around you today, the world is getting more and more mechanised, factories used to need hundreds of barely trained people now they just need 20 or so computer blokes and mechanics to keep the machines running.
Shops are supposed to going to loose all of their staff except security and customer service in the next 20 years too.


It's not going to be a decline per se, it's going to be a sudden reduction. Social Security & government welfare isn't going to be able to cover the costs. Health care, even by todays standards, will not cope with the sudden health requirements. And this will all get worse before it gets better. So coupled with the huge economic burden, by 2050 western countries are either going to go broke &/or the civil unrest caused will spill over into civil wars if not worse. The west will become the Third World.

So you can have all of your mechanised machines & computers run by a handful of people, the thing is there won't be many people around who will be able to afford them. As Richard said, the western world is heading for serious times of trouble. Ironically, with the west's decline we'll see the rise of Asia & Africa.

[Faeelin]

Well depression has nothing to do with it. It's all about basic maths. Unless the child producing generation in the western world don't start fucking their brains out AND produce many offspring, I'm afraid doom is approaching. Europe, of course, won't die out, but Australia, NZ, USA & Canada aren't going to be the countries the we know today.

The one consulation is the the Bush family per se isn't going to be around either. So no third generation of Bush presidents. I guess that's a positive thing :D

This might shock you, but it's Europe who has the birth rate declining below the death rate, not the USA.

[Leo Caesius]

The problem is that physically dividing the country goes directly against the interests of the Christian Right/Neoconservative coalition governing the country. If anything, they want to increase America's power, not divide it in half (or more). If those Blue States were to leave, America would be left with an economy roughly the size of Belarus'.

If anything, the people running the country and their supporters in the Red States would like very much for the Yuppies, Hippies, Intellectuals, Gays, Lesbians, Lawyers, Liberals, Media Personalities, Hollywood Actors, Secular Humanists, Unionists, Leftists of all stripes and people belonging to every religion that isn't directly compatible with Christianity to leave or kill themselves. They want our land, our job, our schools, and the economy we provide for them, but they don't want to live with us.

That's why there was so much rhetoric coming out of the South about liberals being "unamerican." That's why Kerry was painted as "French-looking" from the very start. They don't think that we're Americans, and they want us to agree with them. They'll be damned if they're going to cede an inch of American soil, however, even if it means killing or expelling every last one of us.

[DMA]

This might shock you, but it's Europe who has the birth rate declining below the death rate, not the USA.


Even the USA is going to have to face a drastic population reduction when the Baby Boomer generation starts to die out. But before they do, they'll be a horrific burden on Social Security & other governmental structures in particular health from about now onwards. And considering the cost of health in the USA is up to ten times that of elsewhere, it'll mean an even greater strain on the overall economy & national stability than European countries.

As for population growth - the USA currently has a population growth of 0.92% (2004 est.) according to the CIA World Fact Book (http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html). Well that's not much of an impressive growth factor. It's more or less steady, not rapidly growing. So the USA, like Europe, will also have a rapid decrease in its population between say 2030 & 2040.

[Brilliantlight]

robertp6165 wrote


I had a napkin handy, so you don't owe me a new keyboard for that one! By the way, Anchor Steam beer makes for a wonderful sinus cleanser.

'Contributed to the Confederate Cause', yeah right. I can just see the usual contribution too...

"Step N' Fetchit! Finish digging that new latrine, boy, and then get my supper ready or I'll beat your n***** ass."

"Sure 'nuff, Boss."

ROFLMAO!


Bill

LOL, exactly!!!!

[Brilliantlight]

The problem is that physically dividing the country goes directly against the interests of the Christian Right/Neoconservative coalition governing the country. If anything, they want to increase America's power, not divide it in half (or more). If those Blue States were to leave, America would be left with an economy roughly the size of Belarus'.

If anything, the people running the country and their supporters in the Red States would like very much for the Yuppies, Hippies, Intellectuals, Gays, Lesbians, Lawyers, Liberals, Media Personalities, Hollywood Actors, Secular Humanists, Unionists, Leftists of all stripes and people belonging to every religion that isn't directly compatible with Christianity to leave or kill themselves. They want our land, our job, our schools, and the economy we provide for them, but they don't want to live with us.

That's why there was so much rhetoric coming out of the South about liberals being "unamerican." That's why Kerry was painted as "French-looking" from the very start. They don't think that we're Americans, and they want us to agree with them. They'll be damned if they're going to cede an inch of American soil, however, even if it means killing or expelling every last one of us.


Don't exagerate, Bush didn't win 80/20 in most of his states and Kerry didn't in his states so the various states are not THAT far apart. Besides people are moving from blue states to red states as Bush was declared a winner before he won all the states but New Hampshire and picked up Iowa and New Mexico.

[Brilliantlight]

Even the USA is going to have to face a drastic population reduction when the Baby Boomer generation starts to die out. But before they do, they'll be a horrific burden on Social Security & other governmental structures in particular health from about now onwards. And considering the cost of health in the USA is up to ten times that of elsewhere, it'll mean an even greater strain on the overall economy & national stability than European countries.

As for population growth - the USA currently has a population growth of 0.92% (2004 est.) according to the CIA World Fact Book (http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html). Well that's not much of an impressive growth factor. It's more or less steady, not rapidly growing. So the USA, like Europe, will also have a rapid decrease in its population between say 2030 & 2040.

We can always let in more immigrants if need be, we have waiting lines for visas anyways.

[robertp6165]

robertp6165 wrote


I had a napkin handy, so you don't owe me a new keyboard for that one! By the way, Anchor Steam beer makes for a wonderful sinus cleanser.

'Contributed to the Confederate Cause', yeah right. I can just see the usual contribution too...

"Step N' Fetchit! Finish digging that new latrine, boy, and then get my supper ready or I'll beat your n***** ass."

"Sure 'nuff, Boss."

ROFLMAO!


Bill

LOL Well, glad that no damage was done. But the problem with your scenario is that 1) if that is the way it was, Southern states would not have been giving these guys pensions after the war, and 2) These guys would not have been showing pride in their service after the war by joining the United Confederate Veterans and attending Confederate veteran reunions after the war. There is ample documentary evidence for both of these. Black/white relations in the Confederate South were a lot more complicated than it is generally portrayed.

[DMA]

We can always let in more immigrants if need be, we have waiting lines for visas anyways.


Yup, I bet there are plenty of Iraqi's, Iranians, & Talibans just waiting... :D

[Brilliantlight]

Yup, I bet there are plenty of Iraqi's, Iranians, & Talibans just waiting... :D

A WHOLE lot of Russians,Poles and other Eastern Europeans along with half of Central and South America. Who do you think we will let in first? :D

[DMA]

A WHOLE lot of Russians,Poles and other Eastern Europeans along with half of Central and South America. Who do you think we will let in first? :D


Well the Russians, Poles & I'd say the other Europeans are all going to have a sudden reduction in populations levels as well. Russia will probably even have it worse than the USA. So there won't be many of them to spare. Iran, on the other hand, has a huge youth population. In fact the under 15s in Iran make up 29%. The 16-30 year olds then make up a further 43%. So you may not have much of a choice.

[Brilliantlight]

Well the Russians, Poles & I'd say the other Europeans are all going to have a sudden reduction in populations levels as well. Russia will probably even have it worse than the USA. So there won't be many of them to spare. Iran, on the other hand, has a huge youth population. In fact the under 15s in Iran make up 29%. The 16-30 year olds then make up a further 43%. So you may not have much of a choice.

South America doesn't seem to have a shrinking population problem. I would hire someone from Mexico or Venezula MUCH quicker then Iran!

[DMA]

South America doesn't seem to have a shrinking population problem. I would hire someone from Mexico or Venezula MUCH quicker then Iran!


I gather you can do that now. The only thing is, thanks to their population growths along with giant improvements in their economies, whilst the western world including the USA goes broke, it'll be more likely that you'll be working for them instead :D

[Brilliantlight]

I gather you can do that now. The only thing is, thanks to their population growths along with giant improvements in their economies, whilst the western world including the USA goes broke, it'll be more likely that you'll be working for them instead :D


I would take GIANT improvements to do that. The US is at least an order of magnitude richer then Mexico. Besides a lot of the needed workforce will be replaced by robots and not people.

[DMA]

I would take GIANT improvements to do that. The US is at least an order of magnitude richer then Mexico. Besides a lot of the needed workforce will be replaced by robots and not people.

It won't be improvements in South America per se, but the huge hit that the USA is going to take, not to mention the rest of the western world. I estimate that, before it all happens, the population of the USA will reach about 320 million. That's about 30 million more than now. But then doom it starts in 2030. By 2040 the USA will loose at least 100 million people. So by 2040 the population will be back to 220 million. It'll be akin to a nuclear war &, although it isn't, the economic & national insecurity aftereffects will be as if it was one.

Yet at first glance, a population level of 200 million may sound not too bad, until you factor in the horrendous economic blow as mentioned. As I've said before, it'll be an enormous blow to social security & health servies. Even now, under the Bush Administration, they're trying to introduce reforms to deal with what's coming. Whether they help, well I don't think it'll matter as this "decade of death" will bankrupt the western world anyway.

But wait there's more! As Richard said, which started all this, there's captialism. Our economic systems require positive growth, not only nationally, but globally as well. And it's the western world that fuels capitalism. But for it to be successful, capitalism must grow upwards otherwise we get into recession. Well, take out a huge population, like 100 million from 320 million, out of the spending base & there sure won't be any positive growth. In fact there'll be a huge negative growth that countries, even the USA, will take decades to recover from. In the meantime, a huge depression will sweep across the western world the likes of which have never been seen yet. It'll make the Great Depression of the 1930s look like a traffic accident in comparison.

[Leej]

Eastern Europe is the worst place in the world for declining population, with them it really will be a problem.
I doubt our aging population will bring about the fall of western civilization, we are talking 50 years in the future here, the technology which we will have then - most of it can't even be guessed at today. Everyone could have their own little Asimovian robot going around doing all their tasks for them for all we know.

[DMA]

Eastern Europe is the worst country in the world for declining population, with them it really will be a problem.
I doubt our aging population will bring about the fall of western civilization, we are talking 50 years in the future here, the technology which we will have then - most of it can't even be guessed at today. Everyone could have their own little Asimovian robot going around doing all their tasks for them for all we know.


Somehow I don't think relying on robots or other fancy technologies are going to be the answer when most of us won't be able to afford them.

And sure, this is all 30-40 years away, but we're all young enough to, not only know what's possibly in stall, but we're going to live through it too...

[wkwillis]

Okay, a bit of a reality check here.

The libertarian Republicans are not going anywhere with the old testament conservatives like Bush. We don't like them any better than we like the new testament liberals, and they reciprocate the feeling. It's a 35% minority, 15% liberal, 30% conservative, 20% libertarian breakdown in America if you noticed the last election results. So, no civil war.
What will happen is that the minority and conservative population percentages will continue to grow, because they are the ones that are having children or getting immigrants, or both.
Figure on the 2050 problem being 40% minority and 40% conservative and 20% liberal/libertarian. That's when you stop having a balance of electoral power that leads to civil war.
Assuming that the mixing of races doesn't continue it's trend, because if it does then the population is going to be 60% minority, 20% conservative, 20% liberal/libertarian, and the whole minority thing will just disappear.
It's like 1915 to 1960, when the Catholics became 'white' and joined the usual conservative/liberal/libertarian ideological instead of ethnic breakdown in voting patterns.

[Leej]

Somehow I don't think relying on robots or other fancy technologies are going to be the answer when most of us won't be able to afford them.

And how wouldn't we be able to afford them?
Society isn't going to collapse.

[Brilliantlight]

You must admit it is ironic that we are worried about underpopulation when everyone was worried we would be overpopulated back in the '60s and '70s.

[DMA]

And how wouldn't we be able to afford them?


Where is the money going to come from though? Continuous economic down turn will begin from about 2010 onwards once the Baby Boomer et al retire. that's about 100 million people plus in the USA. This is because they'll take a large slice of spending out of the economy. Now it won't be great impact at first, but it'll be a slowdown. That's, though, only the first step. Then, the money that this group does have to spend, will slowly be concentrated in the health sector. Great for the health industry, not overlly great elsewhere.

Once you then get to this stage, the economic downturn will become noticable to the point that investment in future technologies etc will be effected. Just as importantly, jobs will go. Likewise, & it's happening now, investment (& jobs) will go overseas to the nations with strong growing economies. India is the nation to take most notice of, but there'll be others too.

Essentially, it means less & less for the western world as capitalism needs positive growth. So we end up in a trap. Our corporations, which need profits, may remain in our respective countries, but all of their growth is elsewhere. That's great for countries like India, but not for the USA. Of course those high up the corporate ladder continue to do well, but for the bulk of the American (& western) population, it isn't. Other than the basics, all the fancy stuff is going too expensive. And that's if it's built in the first place.

But this situation is nothing compared to the 2030-2040 period. Outside of health, they'll be more or less zero spending by 100 million Americans in other sectors of the economy other than funeral parlors. Then, within a decade, 100 million people will die reducing the overall American population by 33%. The economic situation, already suffering form a least a decade of recession, will be a huge depression. It's simple number crunching.


Society isn't going to collapse.


No it won't collapse, but by 2050 it'll be nothing like what we know it is like today.

[Leej]

America is reaching its peak?
That is good to hear, in Europe though we've been there done that and survived.
What you are saying there DMA assumes our current technology levels, things change a lot, I remember reading something written by a Victorian which said by the year 2000 all civilization would have collapsed due to there not being enough food to feed the world population of 8,000,000,000.
We haven't quite reached that amount of people though we're not far off and iif needs be we proablly could feed that amount (this is a Victorian so I doubt he would have counted the badness in Africa and other parts as a factor)

[DMA]

America is reaching its peak?
That is good to hear, in Europe though we've been there done that and survived.
What you are saying there DMA assumes our current technology levels, things change a lot, I remember reading something written by a Victorian which said by the year 2000 all civilization would have collapsed due to there not being enough food to feed the world population of 8,000,000,000.
We haven't quite reached that amount of people though we're not far off and iif needs be we proablly could feed that amount (this is a Victorian so I doubt he would have counted the badness in Africa and other parts as a factor)


It's just not America that's about to reach it's peak, I'd say it's the same for the western world. But once we do, it's going to be a fast & rough ride downhill...

Alas you Victorian friend may still be right. He was just out by a few decades...

Yet even with a positive take on the next 50 years, you can't dismiss the population rates. You can claim technology may do this, that or something else, but it simply comes down to simple maths & ages groups.

Those in the know in governments are terrified of what's coming. Note that you never hear anything other than the usual crap about Social Security reform? If they really let on, there'll be panic which will only be counter-productive. But Australia's long term planning is interesting. 10 years ago we had massive reforms to Social Security. And now we're buying up military technologies bigtime such as Abram MBTs, F-35s, submarines, & Aegis DDGs...

[Valamyr]

You must admit it is ironic that we are worried about underpopulation when everyone was worried we would be overpopulated back in the '60s and '70s.

I think the reality is that most westerners are worried about underpopulation in the West and overpopulation in the rest of the world.

When 10-15% of the planet commands 80-85% of it's wealth, its a legitimate concern to wonder if they can still pull it off after losing a quarter of their population base, and just how much impact widespread immigration will have on their ethnic makeup in that scenario.

In other words, itll be increasingly difficult for white men to own the world in coming years. Whether or not this is a good thing or a bad thing is subjective. I'm white and not particularly concerned, as i think wealth should be distributed more equally around the world.

But you can be sure it worries the neocons to no end.

[Brilliantlight]

I think the reality is that most westerners are worried about underpopulation in the West and overpopulation in the rest of the world.

When 10-15% of the planet commands 80-85% of it's wealth, its a legitimate concern to wonder if they can still pull it off after losing a quarter of their population base, and just how much impact widespread immigration will have on their ethnic makeup in that scenario.

In other words, itll be increasingly difficult for white men to own the world in coming years. Whether or not this is a good thing or a bad thing is subjective. I'm white and not particularly concerned, as i think wealth should be distributed more equally around the world.

But you can be sure it worries the neocons to no end.


I don't mind buying or selling stuff to the 3rd world, I would resent just GIVING them stuff. The Chinese have shown you can do it on your own if you are willing to free up your markets.

[Saladin]

Something needs to be mentioned that has not as yet, in terms of the US's future (with or without civil war)

I picked this up listening to the BBC World Service about a week back, seems to fit the topic (as discussed) fairly well

Current estimates show the Chinese economy overtaking teh US as the largest individual economy in the world c 2025. The economists blathering on the radio then said something *really* interesting.

the world's reserve currency is the currency of the largest economy in the world *with whom the majority of the world does business* -- in the 19th and early 20th centuries, that was the pound, sterling and c 1945 became the US dollar. These economists estimate the Yuan will become the reserve currency no later than 2040, and that, on top of the population crash issues/social security messes etc really do not paint a good picture for teh US in about 30 years -- loss of value of the dollar, the ongoing deficit being called in and the US not having the effective credit that the reserve currency provides

This isnt a case of yank bashing btw, some of the economists on the program were from the US and they were the most worried of all


All the best


Chris

[MerryPrankster]

Something needs to be mentioned that has not as yet, in terms of the US's future (with or without civil war)

I picked this up listening to the BBC World Service about a week back, seems to fit the topic (as discussed) fairly well

Current estimates show the Chinese economy overtaking teh US as the largest individual economy in the world c 2025. The economists blathering on the radio then said something *really* interesting.

the world's reserve currency is the currency of the largest economy in the world *with whom the majority of the world does business* -- in the 19th and early 20th centuries, that was the pound, sterling and c 1945 became the US dollar. These economists estimate the Yuan will become the reserve currency no later than 2040, and that, on top of the population crash issues/social security messes etc really do not paint a good picture for teh US in about 30 years -- loss of value of the dollar, the ongoing deficit being called in and the US not having the effective credit that the reserve currency provides

This isnt a case of yank bashing btw, some of the economists on the program were from the US and they were the most worried of all


All the best


Chris

Very interesting. I may have to incorporate that into some of my Future Histories.

Good thing the US still has lots of nukes. That means no invasions are likely.

[WngMasterD]

Just out of Curiosity, how many succestionist movements in the US are there. There is a party in Alaska, possibly one in Hawaii. There is the whole Free State thing in New hampshire (although im not sure if thats succesionest). There was talk of succesion in three counties in MN. In Michigan there is the UP which has mtioned succesion (most of the time it is from the state however). Am i missing any.

I tried writing a story where the USA breaks up, this may be some good reasons

[Farnham]

Something needs to be mentioned that has not as yet, in terms of the US's future (with or without civil war)

I picked this up listening to the BBC World Service about a week back, seems to fit the topic (as discussed) fairly well

Current estimates show the Chinese economy overtaking teh US as the largest individual economy in the world c 2025. The economists blathering on the radio then said something *really* interesting.

the world's reserve currency is the currency of the largest economy in the world *with whom the majority of the world does business* -- in the 19th and early 20th centuries, that was the pound, sterling and c 1945 became the US dollar. These economists estimate the Yuan will become the reserve currency no later than 2040, and that, on top of the population crash issues/social security messes etc really do not paint a good picture for teh US in about 30 years -- loss of value of the dollar, the ongoing deficit being called in and the US not having the effective credit that the reserve currency provides

This isnt a case of yank bashing btw, some of the economists on the program were from the US and they were the most worried of all


All the best


Chris


It's not yank bashing. I've heard some deficit hawks and goldbugs saying similiar things.

[Farnham]

Just out of Curiosity, how many succestionist movements in the US are there. There is a party in Alaska, possibly one in Hawaii. There is the whole Free State thing in New hampshire (although im not sure if thats succesionest). There was talk of succesion in three counties in MN. In Michigan there is the UP which has mtioned succesion (most of the time it is from the state however). Am i missing any.

I tried writing a story where the USA breaks up, this may be some good reasons

Here's a good place to start:

http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Issues/Territorial_Disputes/United_States/

I don't think it's all that likely the US will break up anytime soon. But you could try an independent Alaska or a Republic del Norte in the Southwest.

[Derek Jackson]

If in 2008 Republicans increase their majorities in the clearly red states and Democrats do the same in the blue ones whoever loses Iowa, Ohio and New Mexico will be VERY pissed

[Macsporan]

This is all very interesting from several points of view.

The resemblance of this to the dying days of the Roman Empire is striking. The Empire suffered drastic population loss the Second and Third Centuries, from pandemic disease and civil war. Some estimates run as high as 50%. In the years that followed the Empire was crushed under the weight of taxes as the state tried to maintain an expanded army and bureaucracy on a fraction of the amount of taxpayers.

This seems to be the fate of the modern West, only it will not be the army but swarms of old baby-boomer codgers. It will be interesting to see if the young and middle-aged people will be willing to support this charge on their revenues or will they drag the old coots out of their retirement homes and put them to work digging the roads and cleaning up the public parks on the principle "He who does not work does not eat."

It would be interesting if the generation the launched the "youth revolution" should be the victim of one in their dotage. It is hard to see how western dominance can possibly survive this catastrophe. Civilisations that are too greedy to have children do not survive. Another factor is the immense rise in sterility in young Western couples which is no doubt the result of the toxic environment we have created for ourselves.

One is reminded of the failure of the Roman senatorial aristocracy to reproduce itself. Some of it was lead poisoning and malaria but mostly it was pure selfishness and greed compounded by the fear of splitting up the family fortune among too many heirs. Periodic massacres by mad and paranoid emperors didn't help either. Whatever the cause during the Imperial period senatorial families were generally extinct after three generations. All the old families of the Republic were gone by the death of Nero, last of the Julio-Claudians.

The modern parallels are obvious.

I expect the Muslims and Chinese will inherit the earth. Their won't have to be a war. They'll just infiltrate.

[Dave Howery]

the old saying is that 'empires, not being up or down, don't rise or fall; they just change their face', or something like that. I don't see the US as having a spectacular fall as Rome did, with barbarian invasions and outsiders taking over. I see the end of the US as more of a gradual thing.... if I had to guess, I would say that the SW part will drift away and become closer to Latin America, while the other parts will slowly separate due to polarizing politics. But this is a long term gradual process, likely not happening until the end of the century at the earliest.. it certainly won't happen in 2010....

[DuQuense]

Good lord, you people are depressing. Look on the bright side! The whole interesting times thing! It'll be like the collapse of Rome, just without the barbarians and loss of infrastructure.

Remember Attilla never sacked Rome, The Pope took the Roman army out to meet Him. along with several wagons full of treasure. Given the choice between the gold and fighting the Romans- Attilla [no fool] took the gold and went home.

When the Army [ie police] returned to Rome they discovered that the Germanic tribes that had been living Un-Assimulated in the cities for generations, had rioted and sacked the city.

Whe already have the Barbarian tribes, they have names like the Bloods, & the Crisps, & Angels. They are already in the Cities, ready for the collaspe of other Authority.


The Red State/ Blue State map is misleading what you have to look at is a Country, or even a precinit map of the country. At that level you see blue Cities, surrounded by, red Suburbs/rural

[MerryPrankster]

the old saying is that 'empires, not being up or down, don't rise or fall; they just change their face', or something like that. I don't see the US as having a spectacular fall as Rome did, with barbarian invasions and outsiders taking over. I see the end of the US as more of a gradual thing.... if I had to guess, I would say that the SW part will drift away and become closer to Latin America, while the other parts will slowly separate due to polarizing politics. But this is a long term gradual process, likely not happening until the end of the century at the earliest.. it certainly won't happen in 2010....

There are Hispanic activists in the US Southwest who view themselves as "America's Palestinians" and advocate secession.

www.aztlan.net or www.aztlan.org (one link is working and one is not).

They might be marginalized flakes now, but who knows what will happen if the dollar really does collapse?

[Leo Caesius]

The Red State/ Blue State map is misleading what you have to look at is a Country, or even a precinit map of the country. At that level you see blue Cities, surrounded by, red Suburbs/rural
DuQuense - you mean something like this?

http://www.electoral-vote.com/images/counties-2004a.gif

I got news for you - nearly half of this country voted for John Kerry, AKA "The No. 1 Liberal in the Senate", and we're not all concentrated in the cities, contrary to what the Republicans would have you believe.

[Paul Spring]

Being Black and from the South I can tell you that the easiest way to demonetize black "leaders" is to just tell people where their from and call them what they are, socialists. You do that and I guarantee you'll get a "Well..." or some doubt. Most people in the South including myself don't want the Union divided but if I feel my rights are threatened by damn Northerners, hell I'll fight and I won't be the only one.

With the way politics are going these days, I think more northerners feel their rights threatened by the south than the other way around. Fortunately, northern states don't seriously consider leaving the union just because the most popular candidate in their region lost the presidential election :D

[wkwillis]

It is possible to have a quicker breakup. Here's how.

1. POD is a killer flu that wipes out 10% of the world's population, concentrated among young and old. Maybe there is widespread civil unrest in China and medical care/sanitation/quarantine breaking down. Say, the 100 million migrant workers go bacl to their home villages and really get a large population incubating vaccine beating influenza variants.
No vaccination campaign in China that year to really help it start off, no CDC people to come in, no notification to the CDC so they can get started on vaccines in time...

2. The dead people in the US are mostly old people. The last time this happened it was only one half percent of the population, and it hit people at all age groups, middle aged as well as old and young and children. It actually killed more twenty-thirty year olds as a percentage than other age groups.
This one is more selective. Half the dead are old people (60 plus), which is one quarter of their proportion of the population.

3. Lots of homes come on the market cheap. This makes relocation very easy for those who want to move where the culture is more compatible. Futher, the collapse in house prices allows 'poor' people to move into middle class people's houses. Like blacks into suburban areas that are now mostly white. Most slum houses are torn down, abandoned, or used as part time housing. This is rural slum as well as city slum. Trailor parks in the rural areas become vacation housing. They are deserted most of the year except for a caretaker who lives there year round.

4. Wages for poor people climb relative to inflation. Partly this is because the dollar finally does collapse, partly because it's hard to keep importing when China isn't exporting anymore, partly because a lot of immigrants go home to settle inheiritance problems (and keep their families interests safe when dividing up the grandparents farm), partly because there are more jobs than people to fill them, partly because a lot of women retire from the work force to take care of the kids now that the husband is making more money and the family doesn't need their income any more, which of course reduces the labor supply further, and this increases the wage rates... This makes them more mobile so they can move because they want to.

5. Debts disappear because of inflation. Mortgages are the biggest, credit card loans are next, then college loans. This makes people less interested in working, which causes wage rates to climb as people quit there jobs. It also makes them more mobile. No mortgage payments make people more flexible in working arrangements, and relocation.

6. What inheiritance there is after the dieoff of the old is also going to let more people than usual go to college, take time off to deal with the estate, or retire. Wages climb even more relative to inflation. Stock prices collapse with all the selling that's going on. That also gives people the money they need to finally move.

7. Lots of real estate in the south is available for sale. Lots of wealthier and older old people live in the south. Now they are dead and houses are easily available. This is Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and North Carolina.
Lots of people move into their parents/grandparents home and stay there while they try to get a decent price for it, and finally realize they won't. Families split up when someone decides that what the hell, they like the south. Or the other branch moves to be near relatives.

8. Lots of jobs open up because of the death of employees. It's a lot easier to move if you know that you will get a good job someplace else. Lots of these jobs are going to be promotions because it was the senior employees that died. This is what's really going to get the conservative people moving.

9. As assortive moving climbs, it makes people uneasy about the kind of people moving into their neighborhoods. They move out, making the neighborhoods even more culturally monolithic, which makes more people move...

10. The areas that lose the most are urban areas. The big state, small state divisions get less important, which means the liberals get more influence, which pisses off the conservatives even more, at the same time as the collapse of asset values and the rapid climb in wages makes less and less people able to vote their pocketbook as libertarian (low tax) Republicans so the Republican vote looks like a permanent minority. This increases the willingness of the southern conservatives to split off from all those damn liberals...

11. The loss of elderly people reduces social security and medicare expenses, government (federal, state, local, and shadow/district) pensions, and employment. There is no conflict over the assumption of pensions and debt of the federal government because the age structure of America's ethnic and cultural groups is now much more similar. This reduces the liberal/libertarian white groups attachment to keeping the conservative/black/hispanic groups paying taxes.

12. The collapse of housing values reduces wages in the liberal/libertarian areas like metrocoastal cities. This reduces the conservative/black/hispanic groups attachment to keeping them around, too.

And so America splits up because off hand, no one wants it to stay together. No fuss, no muss, no fighting over the valuable cities or mineral deposits or farms or forests or oil fields, (did I mention what happens to the price of oil when ten percent of your market drops dead?), and basically, no agitation at all.

[Brilliantlight]

It is possible to have a quicker breakup. Here's how.

1. POD is a killer flu that wipes out 10% of the world's population, concentrated among young and old. Maybe there is widespread civil unrest in China and medical care/sanitation/quarantine breaking down. Say, the 100 million migrant workers go bacl to their home villages and really get a large population incubating vaccine beating influenza variants.
No vaccination campaign in China that year to really help it start off, no CDC people to come in, no notification to the CDC so they can get started on vaccines in time...

2. The dead people in the US are mostly old people. The last time this happened it was only one half percent of the population, and it hit people at all age groups, middle aged as well as old and young and children. It actually killed more twenty-thirty year olds as a percentage than other age groups.
This one is more selective. Half the dead are old people (60 plus), which is one quarter of their proportion of the population.

3. Lots of homes come on the market cheap. This makes relocation very easy for those who want to move where the culture is more compatible. Futher, the collapse in house prices allows 'poor' people to move into middle class people's houses. Like blacks into suburban areas that are now mostly white. Most slum houses are torn down, abandoned, or used as part time housing. This is rural slum as well as city slum. Trailor parks in the rural areas become vacation housing. They are deserted most of the year except for a caretaker who lives there year round.

4. Wages for poor people climb relative to inflation. Partly this is because the dollar finally does collapse, partly because it's hard to keep importing when China isn't exporting anymore, partly because a lot of immigrants go home to settle inheiritance problems (and keep their families interests safe when dividing up the grandparents farm), partly because there are more jobs than people to fill them, partly because a lot of women retire from the work force to take care of the kids now that the husband is making more money and the family doesn't need their income any more, which of course reduces the labor supply further, and this increases the wage rates... This makes them more mobile so they can move because they want to.

5. Debts disappear because of inflation. Mortgages are the biggest, credit card loans are next, then college loans. This makes people less interested in working, which causes wage rates to climb as people quit there jobs. It also makes them more mobile. No mortgage payments make people more flexible in working arrangements, and relocation.

6. What inheiritance there is after the dieoff of the old is also going to let more people than usual go to college, take time off to deal with the estate, or retire. Wages climb even more relative to inflation. Stock prices collapse with all the selling that's going on. That also gives people the money they need to finally move.

7. Lots of real estate in the south is available for sale. Lots of wealthier and older old people live in the south. Now they are dead and houses are easily available. This is Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and North Carolina.
Lots of people move into their parents/grandparents home and stay there while they try to get a decent price for it, and finally realize they won't. Families split up when someone decides that what the hell, they like the south. Or the other branch moves to be near relatives.

8. Lots of jobs open up because of the death of employees. It's a lot easier to move if you know that you will get a good job someplace else. Lots of these jobs are going to be promotions because it was the senior employees that died. This is what's really going to get the conservative people moving.

9. As assortive moving climbs, it makes people uneasy about the kind of people moving into their neighborhoods. They move out, making the neighborhoods even more culturally monolithic, which makes more people move...

10. The areas that lose the most are urban areas. The big state, small state divisions get less important, which means the liberals get more influence, which pisses off the conservatives even more, at the same time as the collapse of asset values and the rapid climb in wages makes less and less people able to vote their pocketbook as libertarian (low tax) Republicans so the Republican vote looks like a permanent minority. This increases the willingness of the southern conservatives to split off from all those damn liberals...

11. The loss of elderly people reduces social security and medicare expenses, government (federal, state, local, and shadow/district) pensions, and employment. There is no conflict over the assumption of pensions and debt of the federal government because the age structure of America's ethnic and cultural groups is now much more similar. This reduces the liberal/libertarian white groups attachment to keeping the conservative/black/hispanic groups paying taxes.

12. The collapse of housing values reduces wages in the liberal/libertarian areas like metrocoastal cities. This reduces the conservative/black/hispanic groups attachment to keeping them around, too.

And so America splits up because off hand, no one wants it to stay together. No fuss, no muss, no fighting over the valuable cities or mineral deposits or farms or forests or oil fields, (did I mention what happens to the price of oil when ten percent of your market drops dead?), and basically, no agitation at all.

Very damn unlikely, there has to big, major moral issues to divide the country about and I don't see them.

[wkwillis]

Very damn unlikely, there has to big, major moral issues to divide the country about and I don't see them.

No, there doesn't. Look at Sweden/Norway, or Czechoslovakia. Consider Yugoslavia. In Yugoslavia what caused the greatest stress was the differential birthrates between the poor/old and rich/young areas of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, and Kosovo. Richer areas had lower birth rates and higher education rates. The Serb/Croat/Bosnian difference was over the rural Serb farmers with more kids than the Croat/Bosnian city people. Culturally they were very similar. I'm sure the Croats would have stolen the Yugoslav treasury's financial reserves if the Serbs hadn't beaten them to it.
Same goes for the southern/Slovak and northern/Czech, with the added problem of the extremely high black/Roma birthrate. The Slovaks had most of the Roma and the Roma had most of the children, so the Slovaks attempted to defund the Roma children in school but keep taxing them for social security taxes. The Czechs were afraid the Roma would move into their neighborhood...well, okay, it was more complicated than that and had to do with the difference between the Hungarian ruled Slovaks and the German ruled Czechs and their differential development rates. Like that the major Slovak industrial (and Capital) city of Bratislava was actually a Hungarian city that they annexed after World War I.
It doesn't take much. Sometimes it's just the fact that the black and hispanic minorities of America are never going to have a president any time in the horizon of the black and hispanic politicians. Secession is the way to become a contender for head of state.
God knows we Libertarians would be happy to be able to cut our tax rates in half if we didn't have to drag the other cultures along behind us anymore.

[Brilliantlight]

No, there doesn't. Look at Sweden/Norway, or Czechoslovakia. Consider Yugoslavia. In Yugoslavia what caused the greatest stress was the differential birthrates between the poor/old and rich/young areas of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, and Kosovo. Richer areas had lower birth rates and higher education rates. The Serb/Croat/Bosnian difference was over the rural Serb farmers with more kids than the Croat/Bosnian city people. Culturally they were very similar. I'm sure the Croats would have stolen the Yugoslav treasury's financial reserves if the Serbs hadn't beaten them to it.
Same goes for the southern/Slovak and northern/Czech, with the added problem of the extremely high black/Roma birthrate. The Slovaks had most of the Roma and the Roma had most of the children, so the Slovaks attempted to defund the Roma children in school but keep taxing them for social security taxes. The Czechs were afraid the Roma would move into their neighborhood...well, okay, it was more complicated than that and had to do with the difference between the Hungarian ruled Slovaks and the German ruled Czechs and their differential development rates. Like that the major Slovak industrial (and Capital) city of Bratislava was actually a Hungarian city that they annexed after World War I.
It doesn't take much. Sometimes it's just the fact that the black and hispanic minorities of America are never going to have a president any time in the horizon of the black and hispanic politicians. Secession is the way to become a contender for head of state.
God knows we Libertarians would be happy to be able to cut our tax rates in half if we didn't have to drag the other cultures along behind us anymore.

Still damn unlikely, in the ACW the south was threatening to secede for decades. Apart from a few kooks no one is backing that now.

[NapoleonXIV]

Now there's one way to end the Social Security fuss, kill all the old people.

[Dave Howery]

well, yes, if we are going to hypothesize massive disasters, then you could bring about the collapse of the US quickly... but I think we were all assuming that the world would go on as normal and trying to make guesses about the future based on current trends. An unstoppable plague could certainly bring down the US (and every other nation).... so could nuclear war, a huge asteroid landing in Kansas, aliens blowing up most of our major cities, a sudden ice age ala "The Day After Tomorrow" or the dead rising from the graves who eat the brains of the living.....

[Raymann]

Good point Dave, I think at most divideness would cause states to become less dependent on the fed and control more of their own social welfare programs. Most of the country could reduce/abolish social programs and signifacantly kower taxes and the rest could expand them. This of course would lead to a brain drain and...

[Macsporan]

I agree with my critics that 2010 is too close. 2020 is far more reasonable.

Do you think the blue states would secceed? Could they take any red states with them as ACW-style "border states."

How would the fundementalist right and the flag-waving right wing nationalists
in the red states respond?

Would their be a rush of patriotic fury to restore the Union?

Or not?

[Dave Howery]

2020 is still too early... try for 2100... much more likely....

as for the whole blue/red state thing... there are only about 6 states that are overwhelmingly republican/red, and 4 that are nearly all Democrat/blue... the rest are purple to varying degrees....

[Brilliantlight]

2020 is still too early... try for 2100... much more likely....

as for the whole blue/red state thing... there are only about 6 states that are overwhelmingly republican/red, and 4 that are nearly all Democrat/blue... the rest are purple to varying degrees....

Agreed, 2100 at the earliest. It took a long time for the Roman Empire to finally fall from its height and the US is at least as dominent now.

[DMA]

Agreed, 2100 at the earliest. It took a long time for the Roman Empire to finally fall from its height and the US is at least as dominent now.


As I posted earlier, the USA will be at it's lowest around 2050. So I can't see 2100 being the "earliest". If the USA has survived by 2100, it'll remain together. So 2100 is, in fact, too late.

[Dave Howery]

barring disaster, though, I think the US will go through a gradual separation; that takes time. 40 years just isn't long enough. Even with economic hard times and political polarization, we're only talking a couple of generations.
However, 100 years may be too long a time as well... it was only about 80 years from the birth of the US to the ACW, so, let's split the difference and say maybe around 2060 or 2075...
of course, most of us will be long dead by then...

[DMA]

barring disaster, though, I think the US will go through a gradual separation; that takes time. 40 years just isn't long enough. Even with economic hard times and political polarization, we're only talking a couple of generations.
However, 100 years may be too long a time as well... it was only about 80 years from the birth of the US to the ACW, so, let's split the difference and say maybe around 2060 or 2075...
of course, most of us will be long dead by then...


Yeah, if it's going to happen, it's between 2050-2075 as the USA (& the western world) recovers from the "decade of death"

[Brilliantlight]

Yeah, if it's going to happen, it's between 2050-2075 as the USA (& the western world) recovers from the "decade of death"


Long before that adjustments will be made such as increasing further the tax deductions on kids, making it harder to get abortions and increasing immigration from Latin America. It is Europe that is in a bind, they would have to get immigrants from the Middle East and if they do that they might as well blow up the place now and spare the Arabs the trouble.

[DMA]

Long before that adjustments will be made such as increasing further the tax deductions on kids, making it harder to get abortions and increasing immigration from Latin America. It is Europe that is in a bind, they would have to get immigrants from the Middle East and if they do that they might as well blow up the place now and spare the Arabs the trouble.


Blow up the place? That's what the Americans are for... :p :D

[Brilliantlight]

Blow up the place? That's what the Americans are for... :p :D

Look at the Arab realistically, when they aren't blowing up buildings in Europe, America or Israel they are blowing each other up. They kill each other by the tens of thousands every year in wars, revolutions and terrorist attacks.

[DMA]

Look at the Arab realistically, when they aren't blowing up buildings in Europe, America or Israel they are blowing each other up. They kill each other by the tens of thousands every year in wars, revolutions and terrorist attacks.


And what have the Americans been doing for the last 50 plus years? Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Grenada, Panama, Solmalia, Afghanistan, Iraq & goodness knows where else...

The next thing is - what Arab wars? The only current one that I'm aware of is taking place in Iraq. And that involves the Americans... again...

[Leo Caesius]

I suppose if the US were to go into a period of steep decline, wracked by civil wars, only to be invaded by the European powers and divided into a series of mandates administered by, of all places, France and Britain, colonized by a foreign population, and only then given enough of a semblance of independence to be drawn into a further series of devastating wars engineered by their corrupt leaders in collusion with the great powers in an attempt to monopolize America's natural resources, Brilliantlight would lay the blame for everything squarely at the Americans' doorstep. Right?

Think of the Ottomans in the waning years of their power as the Northeast Liberal Elite, and the Arabs as the Red States, young and full of piss and vinegar (not to mention devoutly religious). While I'm not saying it could happen here, I am saying that this talk of Arabs being naturally warlike without any reference to their environment is balderdash.

[MerryPrankster]

And what have the Americans been doing for the last 50 plus years? Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Grenada, Panama, Solmalia, Afghanistan, Iraq & goodness knows where else...

The next thing is - what Arab wars? The only current one that I'm aware of is taking place in Iraq. And that involves the Americans... again...

What about WWII? That was an even bigger deal than Korea, Vietnam, etc.

At Hama in 1982, the Syrian gov't killed 10,000 people (Muslim Brotherhood types, but a lot of civilians too). Lebanon was a pretty nasty Arab-on-Arab affair. The Persian Gulf War too, and the civil war in Yemen where the Egyptians intervened and used a lot of poison gas. During the Second Intifada, Arabs who were allegedly "collaborators" were lynched, and let's not even GET into "honor killings."

Of course, you did say "currently."

[MerryPrankster]

I suppose if the US were to go into a period of steep decline, wracked by civil wars, only to be invaded by the European powers and divided into a series of mandates administered by, of all places, France and Britain, colonized by a foreign population, and only then given enough of a semblance of independence to be drawn into a further series of devastating wars engineered by their corrupt leaders in collusion with the great powers in an attempt to monopolize America's natural resources, Brilliantlight would lay the blame for everything squarely at the Americans' doorstep. Right?

Think of the Ottomans in the waning years of their power as the Northeast Liberal Elite, and the Arabs as the Red States, young and full of piss and vinegar (not to mention devoutly religious). While I'm not saying it could happen here, I am saying that this talk of Arabs being naturally warlike without any reference to their environment is balderdash.

There was that entire "Great Islamic Expansion" that led to an Empire stretching from southern France all the way to western China, as well as constant border war with the Byzantines (I read recently about "the 13th Muslim-Byzantine War," fought between the Byzantine Empire and the Caliphate). Granted, all that was more than 1000 years ago, but there's no conceivable way to blame the West for it.

Your Ottoman analogy is very interesting, Leo.

[Raymann]

The US is not like the Ottomans, true its declining but only in relation to the rest of the world. The US is still objectivily growing and no nation is even close to it. Japan is a distant second but its a firm US ally. China is of course growing but its still comparitivly small compared it its size. China has almost 4 times the population so as indivisuals the Chinese have to grow economically 4 times the US GDP to even match it. And that will take a long time to occur if it can.

[MerryPrankster]

Look at the Arab realistically, when they aren't blowing up buildings in Europe, America or Israel they are blowing each other up. They kill each other by the tens of thousands every year in wars, revolutions and terrorist attacks.

I don't think you can stereotype ALL Arabs as kill-crazy. I'm fairly certain the kill-crazy types are a minority.

[Brilliantlight]

And what have the Americans been doing for the last 50 plus years? Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Grenada, Panama, Solmalia, Afghanistan, Iraq & goodness knows where else...

The next thing is - what Arab wars? The only current one that I'm aware of is taking place in Iraq. And that involves the Americans... again...
There was one between Iraq and Kuwait, there was one between Syria and Lebenon, there was one between Libya and I think Algeria and those are off the top of my head. Hell, the Arabs are declaring Jihads every other week and have been for centuries.

[Brilliantlight]

I don't think you can stereotype ALL Arabs as kill-crazy. I'm fairly certain the kill-crazy types are a minority.


All Arabs no, enough Arabs that it is dangerous to let them in large numbers yes.

[DMA]

There was one between Iraq and Kuwait, there was one between Syria and Lebenon, there was one between Libya and I think Algeria and those are off the top of my head. Hell, the Arabs are declaring Jihads every other week and have been for centuries.


Of course there has been, but just to lable the Arabs, as you did, whilst ignoring what civilised western countries have done over the years (which has been far worse IMHO) just smacks of hypocracy. In fact the US has probably killed far more people, since WW2, than any other nation. Having said that, I'd argue that no one country has the high moral ground on this issue, yet singling out one group per se is just wrong.

Oh - BTW - the Iraq and Kuwait war involved the Americans big time, whilst the USA also got involved in the Lebanese business at one time too...

[DMA]

What about WWII? That was an even bigger deal than Korea, Vietnam, etc.

At Hama in 1982, the Syrian gov't killed 10,000 people (Muslim Brotherhood types, but a lot of civilians too). Lebanon was a pretty nasty Arab-on-Arab affair. The Persian Gulf War too, and the civil war in Yemen where the Egyptians intervened and used a lot of poison gas. During the Second Intifada, Arabs who were allegedly "collaborators" were lynched, and let's not even GET into "honor killings."

Of course, you did say "currently."


I'm not denying any of that, but in comparision to the military history of the USA, they're no worse.

Do note, however, I'm not saying that Arabs are right or wrong, or the USA is either for that matter, I'm just saying to single them out, whilst ignoring what others have done, is wrong.

[Brilliantlight]

And what have the Americans been doing for the last 50 plus years? Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Grenada, Panama, Solmalia, Afghanistan, Iraq & goodness knows where else...

The next thing is - what Arab wars? The only current one that I'm aware of is taking place in Iraq. And that involves the Americans... again...

We got involved in Korea AFTER North Korea invaded South Korea, we got involved in Vietnam AFTER North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam and the French practically begged us to get involved and then later complained how we were doing so. Cambodia and Laos were sheltering NVA. Grenada, Panama and Solmalia are more questionable. Afghanistan was attacked for harboring Bin Laden after 9/11.

[DMA]

We got involved in Korea AFTER North Korea invaded South Korea, we got involved in Vietnam AFTER North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam and the French practically begged us to get involved and then later complained how we were doing so. Cambodia and Laos were sheltering NVA. Grenada, Panama and Solmalia are more questionable. Afghanistan was attacked for harboring Bin Laden after 9/11.


Yes, I am aware of these things. I was not getting into whether these conflicts were justified or not, I was merely pointing out that the USA has been involved with as many conflicts as any Arab nation has. Furthermore, the USA has probably killed far more than all of the Arab conflicts put together.

[Brilliantlight]

Yes, I am aware of these things. I was not getting into whether these conflicts were justified or not, I was merely pointing out that the USA has been involved with as many conflicts as any Arab nation has. Furthermore, the USA has probably killed far more than all of the Arab conflicts put together.

The point is that most of them and certainly all the big ones were defensive wars not offensive ones while with the Arabs the opposite is true.

[DMA]

The point is that most of them and certainly all the big ones were defensive wars not offensive ones while with the Arabs the opposite is true.


Then the current war in Iraq isn't offensive? Or the one in Vietnam wasn't a move by the USA to stop Communism? Or the move into Cambodia & Laos wasn't a pre-emptive action against the Vietnamese? The invasion of Panama & Grenada weren't offensive? Of course these are offensive.

And how can all the Arab wars be offensive if one side, at least, is the Arab country being attacked?

[MerryPrankster]

I'm not denying any of that, but in comparision to the military history of the USA, they're no worse.

Do note, however, I'm not saying that Arabs are right or wrong, or the USA is either for that matter, I'm just saying to single them out, whilst ignoring what others have done, is wrong.

You are correct on that one.

However, on the matter of killing people post-1945, the US is quite far behind. Mao's lunacy in China and Pol Pot's in Cambodia put the US to shame.

[MerryPrankster]

Then the current war in Iraq isn't offensive? Or the one in Vietnam wasn't a move by the USA to stop Communism? Or the move into Cambodia & Laos wasn't a pre-emptive action against the Vietnamese? The invasion of Panama & Grenada weren't offensive? Of course these are offensive.

And how can all the Arab wars be offensive if one side, at least, is the Arab country being attacked?

The US went into Cambodia and Laos to stop the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army from using them to funnel troops and supplies into the South. The US was not pre-empting a unilateral NVA invasion of the two, though the NVA *did* go into Cambodia in the late 1970s to overthrow Pol Pot (though it certainly wasn't from the goodness of their hearts).

[DMA]

You are correct on that one.

However, on the matter of killing people post-1945, the US is quite far behind. Mao's lunacy in China and Pol Pot's in Cambodia put the US to shame.


That's true, although I view these as more akin to genocide rather than battle casualties. But I get your point.

[MerryPrankster]

That's true, although I view these as more akin to genocide rather than battle casualties. But I get your point.

Ah, battle casualties.

You may have a point with that. In Korea, 50,000+ US soldiers died, but the Chinese lost over a million men doing so. In that case, it just comes down to military efficiency.

[DMA]

The US went into Cambodia and Laos to stop the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army from using them to funnel troops and supplies into the South. The US was not pre-empting a unilateral NVA invasion of the two, though the NVA *did* go into Cambodia in the late 1970s to overthrow Pol Pot (though it certainly wasn't from the goodness of their hearts).


nonetheless, the USA decided to expand the war into another country(s) in order to attack their enemy before that enemy attacked them. To me that's a pre-emptive action.

[DMA]

Ah, battle casualties.

You may have a point with that. In Korea, 50,000+ US soldiers died, but the Chinese lost over a million men doing so. In that case, it just comes down to military efficiency.


Well neither figure sounds good. Avoiding the war would have been better, but that's the idealist in me. The casualties from Vietnam are pretty horrid too - alas.

[Brilliantlight]

Then the current war in Iraq isn't offensive? Or the one in Vietnam wasn't a move by the USA to stop Communism? Or the move into Cambodia & Laos wasn't a pre-emptive action against the Vietnamese? The invasion of Panama & Grenada weren't offensive? Of course these are offensive.

And how can all the Arab wars be offensive if one side, at least, is the Arab country being attacked?

I would have went to Iraq when Huisen tried to kill the first President Bush and before you ask, yes I would have gone to war if it were Clinton or Carter as well. Trying to kill a head of state or a former head of state is an act of war. I would have gone to war with or at least bombed the hell out of Iran in 1979. Siezing an embassy and taking the occupents as hostages is also an act of war. Most means not all. Panama and Grenada were offensive wars I grant but they weren't the big ones.

[MerryPrankster]

nonetheless, the USA decided to expand the war into another country(s) in order to attack their enemy before that enemy attacked them. To me that's a pre-emptive action.

But the enemy was already attacking the US!

[DMA]

I would have went to Iraq when Huisen tried to kill the first President Bush and before you ask, yes I would have gone to war if it were Clinton or Carter as well. Trying to kill a head of state or a former head of state is an act of war. I would have gone to war with or at least bombed the hell out of Iran in 1979. Siezing an embassy and taking the occupents as hostages is also an act of war. Most means not all. Panama and Grenada were offensive wars I grant but they weren't the big ones.


I'm not denying any of these actions, but to say the Arabs blow everything up & kill people by the thousands, & stereotyping all of them as such, whilst ignoring what America has done since WW2, is just hypocritical. Afterall, Kuwait wasn't being aggresive, Lebanon wasn't, even Iran wasn't when Iraq attacked. So not all Arabs are running around blowing everyone up any more than America does.

[Leo Caesius]

The US is not like the Ottomans, true its declining but only in relation to the rest of the world.
Raymann, Raymann... I wasn't comparing the US to the Ottomans, I was comparing it to the Ottoman Empire (which, for the better part of five centuries, encompassed a number of separate "nations," including Slavs, Greeks, and Arabs, in addition to Turks). Now, I'm horrendously oversimplifying here, but as the empire started coming unglued due to foreign interference and natural centrifugal tendencies, the Ottomans themselves undertook a program of liberalization while still trying to remain true to their Islamic roots. The Arabs, on the other hand - particularly those in the Nejd - adopted a particularly hardcore, faux-traditional variety of Islam that is the source of many of our problems today. Eventually the Arabs wanted out.

I was comparing the Ottomans themselves to the traditional Blue State elite (both Republican and Democrat) who adhere to "liberal ideas" (that is to say, "socially liberal" in contrast to Red State Republicans and Democrats, who are generally socially conservative) and whose power is gradually waning. The "Arabs," on the other hand, are the Red Staters, who are extremely nationalistic, yet despise the Blue State Elite, and devoutly religious. Within the "Arabs" is a third group, the Religious Right, which is not unlike the Wahhabis. I consider myself a kind of "Young Turk."

There's a power struggle between these two regions for the soul of this country. Because ours is a Democratic society, the major skirmishes will be fought at the polling stations and in the media, not on the field of battle, but this is a thread about the dissolution of the union, so I thought I'd run with my analogy.

It's not a perfect analogy, but there you have it.

[DMA]

But the enemy was already attacking the US!


True, but the USA invaded a neutral country in doing so. Again I'm not saying whether it was wrong or right, I'm just pointing out that it was an offensive action.

[Leo Caesius]

At any rate, the whole "plot" to kill George Bush Sr. was probably just a fiction of the Kuwaitis, who captured a couple of Iraqis smuggling whiskey into their country (which is dry in both the literal and figurative sense), tortured them and got them to confess to a conspiracy against the former president. I'm not sure I put much stock in Kuwaiti intelligence.

[Brilliantlight]

At any rate, the whole "plot" to kill George Bush Sr. was probably just a fiction of the Kuwaitis, who captured a couple of Iraqis smuggling whiskey into their country (which is dry in both the literal and figurative sense), tortured them and got them to confess to a conspiracy against the former president. I'm not sure I put much stock in Kuwaiti intelligence.

I wouldn't put it past him, he seems a complete moron.

[Leo Caesius]

There was that entire "Great Islamic Expansion" that led to an Empire stretching from southern France all the way to western China, as well as constant border war with the Byzantines (I read recently about "the 13th Muslim-Byzantine War," fought between the Byzantine Empire and the Caliphate). Granted, all that was more than 1000 years ago, but there's no conceivable way to blame the West for it.
I'm talking about events that happened within the lifetimes of many people, even some of those on this forum. Those events that you're talking about took place at a different time with different players. Byzantium is dead, as is the Caliphate. If anything, the Arabs were second-class citizens under the Caliphate for the last 500 years.

I don't see this so much as a case of the "clash of civilizations" (ugh - I loathe the very thought of it) between East and West, but a case of very real and personal grudges between individual players. When Osama Binladin refers to the Crusades and the Caliphate, he's using rhetorical devices, much like Robert Byrd does when he talks about the Greeks and the Romans. You can bet that Osama is focusing his energies upon the future of Islamic dominance, not the past.

[MerryPrankster]

I'm talking about events that happened within the lifetimes of many people, even some of those on this forum. Those events that you're talking about took place at a different time with different players. Byzantium is dead, as is the Caliphate. If anything, the Arabs were second-class citizens under the Caliphate for the last 500 years.

I don't see this so much as a