Do you think in the future US will split into two or even more countries?
-
-
-
No.
Texas and California talk a big game, but I don't see either ever seceding.
Texas has no state income tax which is part of the attraction to get people to live here (it's offset by other taxes like property tax). California turns a profit, but they also still get federal funding just like any other state (in fact I believe that they receive the most federal funding due to population.)
The other issue plaguing California is that the federal government actually owns nearly half the land in the state. Even if they didn't care about the eastern part of the state, there's still federally owned land in and around the Los Angeles area that they'd either have to purchase or end up with a very disjointed area.
-
-
Maybe
-
-
It depends on how much timelime we are talking about. In short and medium term? Nope. The whole Republican x Democrats differences aren't enough divide even if people paint this way. It's not even close to slave x no-slave division.
Long term? Who knows. This is more of a thought experiment than reality.
The trend seems to be avoiding separatism as much as possible. The last two cases were South Sudan and Kosovo. I think the only peaceful cases that are recent would be in Micronesia nations and they had support from other key countries. With this in mind, places that want to separate needs external support and the ability to defend itself.
Also, It will be interesting if places like Scotland and Catalonia can separate in a peaceful manner. If they manage to do it, maybe it could create a cascading effect and could affect Canada first and then maybe USA could be next in this scenario. Although there is no legal mechanism for any state to get off Union, so even in this case, it seems not feasible.
In the really long term, some drastic events could happen and maybe conditions similar to the civil war could arise. The best scenario for this would be a systematic failure of central government to provide security against external threats, loss of hegemony over the sea lines, and constant influence from other nations to support separatist movements.
In this scenario I'd think Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and islands like Guam would leave first (as independent nations or as a puppet from other regional power). On the continental side, people bring up California or Texas, but I think Alaska could have a better shot at leaving. After that, block of states could form and leave.
California and Texas have some internal securities they would need to solve in other to be stable. I imagine they would either spearhead a block of states or if they go solo, they would need to invade other states to secure enough buffer and water. Alaska is a better case because they don't need to do much to secure its borders. Even a small population could feasible defend it with some external support. Meanwhile California and Texas may talk a lot about leaving, but their geopolitical situation after leaving would be precarious. They would need a lot in order to guarantee a proper independence.
In the end it is a lot of ifs to just have some places to secede. USA as a political entity is pretty stable. The state doesn't need to go full on China or Russia to keep control of its territory integrity.
-
Participate now!
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!