|
|
Had a somewhat heated discussion with a friend of mine a few days ago. We were discussing the potential contingency of several states seceding from the current United States.
My impression (accurate or not) of his point of view was that the no-longer-united states would be just as safe from outside aggression as they are now, just separated into different cooperative regions, or mini-countries. I was of a different opinion, and stated that if the physical country were divided into different regions that officially seceded from the U.S. government's control, it would spell the end of the United States and most likely the eventual surrender of most of its territories to a potential foreign aggressor. He rejected this idea, and his reasoning seemed to be that there was no reason to think that since the government would already protect us from outside aggression in our current configuration of the United States, that the same defensive capabilities would persist even if most of the states opted to secede from the United States. Unfortunately, I was losing patience and he felt I was being condescending, so we had to agree to disagree and drop the conversation. We were at work, after all. Given enough time to properly process the subject, a few issues occurred to me as a result of considering multiple-state secession. Issues that could easily spell the end of this country as we know it. First and foremost, secession means to withdraw from some form of association or organization. Logically, once you withdraw from it, you may be free of its negative aspects, but you're also giving up any advantages it provided. When it comes to the federal government in the United States, this includes many provisions and services. Financially, all 50 states currently utilize a unified form of currency and trade based on a unit called the dollar. This currency is produced solely by the federal government, not by private parties. While a trading or bartering system would be generated in each seceded region, it would likely be based on the dollar out of convenience. However, the protection by the federal government of your banked U.S. currency would no longer exist. Speaking of protection, each region would have to create its own military, likely formed from a consortium of militias. Why would militias be necessary? Since each mini-country would have its own important endemic resources, a system of trade would have to be instituted between them. The idea that all goods would travel unimpeded as they do now is naive because the regional separations would most likely be based on ideological differences, and those would influence factors such as tariffs, taxes, valuations of products, etc. Each region's military would be necessary to prevent any entities from transporting goods illegally or undocumented migration from one region to another. As each region would no longer have to answer to a federal government, how they handle inter-regional relations is up to whoever is put in charge of that region. If there is a scarcity of resources between regions, the chance of inflation per product grows more likely, which leads to theft and smuggling. National defense was the main subject of the original debate with my friend, and I maintained that a divided country with no central government would not be able to stand against foreign aggression, especially since it's highly likely at least one region would assist a foreign aggressor out of its own self interest. My friend insisted that the stopgaps to invasion would remain intact after secession, but didn't manage to sufficiently explain how each seceded region would still have access to the same military that is owned and controlled by Washington D.C. They would not, because the taxes that pay for that military would no longer be gathered by the federal government due to secession. Next, active nuclear silos are placed all over the United States. How will those silos be accessed and controlled once the actual land they reside upon is controlled by a mini-country that is now independent of the federal government? This is a scenario that can't possibly end well, as it only takes one rogue to initiate an exchange that leaves all of the formerly United States territories vulnerable to foreign missiles. If, in the interest of protection and control, federal government agencies decide to disable the inaccessible silos, then our main deterrent for outside aggression has been neutered. The most glaring issue however is in the very nature of the separation itself. One man can't defend himself against a crowd. The more people stand together, the stronger they become. Therefore, if the United States were to split into different autonomous mini-countries free from the federal government's control, they automatically become weaker than they were before because self-preservation would take precedence over re-unification due to ideological dogma. Clearly the different regions would attempt to divvy up everything that used to be centralized by the federal government, and there would be a great deal of inter-regional fighting to establish who gets what. This would further weaken and demoralize the whole, not strengthen the few. Philosophical differences do not destroy a country, they weaken it. However, when philosophical differences lead to a fracture of its land into autonomous territories, then the weakened status becomes more prone to aggression from without, as many military strategists have taken advantage of throughout history ("Divide and Conquer"). And for the life of me, I still don't understand why my friend thought any state can secede from the federal government and still have access to all its advantages. I mean seriously...why would the entity known as the federal government tolerate the fracture of the country it controls? If all states seceded there would be no more need for a centralized federal government, as the very act of secession removes the authority of the federal government. And since the federal government consists of people who are very interested in preserving their control over the population, any state(s) attempting to secede would face a LOT more than legal injunctions, thus weakening our country via demoralization, even if we remained intact. |