The Breakup of North American Countries?

[SteveMSim 275]

After reading and replying to the thread about uniting Europe, I am reminded about a blog, www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2009/01/03/us-disintegration/, about a Russian pundit, Igor Panarin, who actually predicts that “the United States will break into six parts in June or July of 2010.”  According to Panarin, as stated in the blog:

Alaska goes to Russia. Hawaii goes to Japan or China. “The California Republic” — the West from Utah and Arizona to the Pacific — goes to China. “The Texas Republic” — the South from New Mexico to Florida — goes to Mexico. “Atlantic America” — the Northeast from Tennessee and South Carolina up to Maine — joins the European Union. And “The Central North-American Republic” — the Plains from Ohio to Montana — goes to Canada.

As the blog noted, there is almost no chance the United States will break up in the foreseeable future.  If it were to happen, it would most likely be along political lines, with the so-called "Red" states forming one country and the "Blue" states forming another.  But with all of the political divisiveness in the U.S. there have been talk of secession.  There is a group that wants Vermont to secede, with another group that wants to form the "Republic of Cascadia" from the U.S. states of the Pacific Northwest plus the Canadian province of British Columbia.  There is a pro-secession group in Hawaii that wants to restore the monarchy, some Southerners talk about a new Confederate States of America, and the governor of Texas even hinted at secession in a speech earlier this year. 

Does anyone think that a breakup of the North American nations is possible?  If so, how would it happen?

[Ireland/Eire 0]

If there was to be a breakup of the 3 North American nations (Canada, U.S., and Mexico), there would at least be 7 new nations formed:

-California (with the Baja California Peninsula, but without Northern California)

-Hawaii (There could be some provisions where they declare independence as a constitutional monarchy(like the UK).)

-Alaska (without the Alaskan Panhandle)

-Texas (present-day border)

-Cascadia (with the Alaskan Panhandle and Northern California)

-Quebec (present-day border)

-Confederate States of America (the legal sucessor state to the old CSA(1861-1865); consists of Arkansas, Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and the Carolinas, with Atlanta as the capital)

All this could be in the mid-to-far future. I consider the situation very, very unlikely for the U.S., since secession there is not justified.

[Shlarin 0]

If the US defaults on its debt, the states will be split up into the following "spheres of influence":

West Coast: Japan and China

Northern States: Canada

Southern States: Mexico

East Coast: European Union

[Fresh Prince of Wmbg 44]

If the US dissolves wouldn't  it put a huge wrench in the global economy?

[Greater Hanktropolis 0]

No, Montana will become it's own nation. After all, we have the lion's share of nuclear missiles. No dang Canadians, Chinese, or Texans gonna be taking us anytime soon.

No, seriously, the U.S. will eventually fall, but if it does, it is no doubt ALL mankind will be wiped out by nuclear missiles, so who cares where a piece of land goes to whom?

After that though, I think man will be fighting over heaven.

[goodspeed 9]

If America ever dissoved ( in which I doubt) Alaska would go to Russia. If Hawaii didn't become it's own country it go to Canada as well as the the northern States. The East Coast States would most likely start there own form of goverment like the central plains States. California, Texas and New Mexico would go to Mexico. I don't see how the E.U would get involed for the sole reason being North America isn't Europe. However I can see Japan and China could rule over the west coast. But I doubt Canada or Mexico would allow them.There might be a few States that are strong enough to countinue on there own, but the only way I can see America falling would be nothing short of a nuclear war so logically they would jion a stronger form of goverment. Hope that never happens.

[Wiecher 192]

Why would the parts of the usa go to other countries??

if the north american countries breakup, they will form independent nations, not colonies of other countries in the world...

[MattShizzle 11]

I remember reading the CIA predicted in the next century 2 new countries could be carved out of N America - From Northern California, up through British Colombia would be "Pacifica" which would be a hybrid of Asian and American culture. The southwest US and some of Northern Mexico would be one of Hispanic-American culture (I forget the name.)

[Kryptowhite 9]

Thats far too extreme to be realistic. It is more realistic for instead some southeastern states or Texas to secede. I mean, i'd like to think that other than the southern conservative/northern liberal thing, there are no major dividing lines in America that could lead to conflict. The East and West seem in agreement politically and culturally [although we all know the East is superior ] and racially/religiously etc., this is the closest america has ever been to perfect harmony in its history.

[Duke87 1,070]

Well, California and Texas already act like they're their own independent countries, so not much changes there.

And if any foreign entity demands territory for something, they can have New Jersey. We won't miss it.

[MattShizzle 11]

The CIA prediction was based on the number of immigrants to those areas from Asian/Hispanic countries, their birthrates, etc.

[StanislavSoltys 47]

All the states could get mad at the president, start a vote to make a new individual country, and, voila! New countries are born.

[MattShizzle 11]

Originally posted by: StanislavSoltys

All the states could get mad at the president, start a vote to make a new individual country, and, voila! New countries are born.quote>

That didn't work out so well for the states that tried that in 1861.

[Brady Baker 1]

Well, the northeast could join the EU (I live in Pennsylvania) and would not mind one bit. I was in London and much of southern England and loved it. But this is coming from a history nut so my opinion might not count for much. But I agree with Duke87, I would not miss Jersey. LOL

[MattShizzle 11]

I'm in PA too - and as a very Liberal person I think the EU would likely be an improvement.

[Kryptowhite 9]

Yea, after the US joins the EU, so can china, and Brazil...

Or maybe, the european union could be for only european countries. Thats a good idea too.

[SimHoTToDDy 2,939]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Well, California and Texas already act like they're their own independent countries, so not much changes there.

And if any foreign entity demands territory for something, they can have New Jersey. We won't miss it.

quote>

But won't you miss poor old Jersey folk like me?!?!

[Z77 3]

hmmm.. well..i think that if it did, the new countries would be current regional boundaries. so there would be a mideastern, a northeastern, southeastern, and a western US country, and then texas, california, hawaii, and alaska would become seperate countries.

Originally posted by: Duke87 Well, California and Texas already act like they're their own independent countries, so not much changes there. quote>

exactly..its funny how just about every warning label in the US says 'According to the State of California.....'  

but im also a strong believer in the fact that the US is the modern roman empire. firstly citizens will have enough and instate a dictator or emporer, then about 400 years later, everyone else in the world will attack the US at once, and will divvy it amongst themselves. but according to history, i think that we are still another 100 years off of the dictator thing

EDIT: oh and dont worry SimHoTToDDy... we wont give them a populated new jersey......we will just move you all out and then bomb it until there isnt anything left worth anyhting to them

[MattShizzle 11]

Big difference is the Roman Empire didn't have nuclear weapons...

[sumwonyuno 42]

The pro-secession movements in Hawai'i, is largely made up of people of Native Hawaiian descent that want to restore the Hawaiian Monarchy or at least create a government that puts the power back into the hands of the indigenous peoples.  Statehood is controversial in the entire context of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i to annexation, through the Territorial period, and the years leading up to 1959.

Hawai'i was an independent and internationally-recognized sovereign nation before many US States were even territories.  So there is a history of self-governance.  It was always foreign intervention, whether by small groups or other nations, that interfered with the islands.  For example, the Paulet Affair, the French Invasion, the Bayonet Constitution, the coup by the pro-American businessmen and the annexation to the US.

Idealistically, I would imagine an independent Hawai'i establishing peaceful relations with as many countries as it could and maybe declaring itself a neutral state.  Hawai'i is such a strategic point in the world, with distance as the only natural defense.  Natural resources are largely in renewable energy; none for a manufacturing base.  Agriculture for local consumption can be expanded, but pretty much everything for a modern society has to be shipped.

Hawai'i will always be vulnerable to influence by other countries, whether it by military or economic pressure.  Foreign investments will always be required for the Hawaiian economy, whether it continues or not with tourism, or diversifies with other industries.

If Hawai'i gets absorbed into another country, it's not because Hawai'i seeks it.

[Don Giordano 0]

We have to think realisticly here. Just because a part of the US breaks off, doesn't mean it's going to become another country's territory. Take the Southwest. You guys are saying its going to be a part of Mexico. That's unrealistic, at least without explaination. We'll leave and make our own state, not join another. There's nothing of Mexico Americans would like to be a part of. Rather, we'll rather be our own nation and thus be independent, not a colony of others.

Which brings another point: military. Mexico would have to invade the new state to conquor it. And, quite frankly, I don't think they will. They have enough crap going on to focus it on something else. And even if this country were to split into "six states", one of them would HAVE to be the loyalist United States. It's far too unlikely for all six to be conviently against the US. That loyalist state would have an advantage of military affairs and take back the rebel states, like in the Civil War.

It's definatly a possibility. But in today's age where the people are happier than ever, I doubt it would evolve into more than just shouting in Congress.

[cherub72 0]

If a part of Canada were to break off, it would probaly be Alberta, wich would join the US, or Native Americans in the far north.

EDIT: WOW, I forgot about Qubec.

[metalsludge 1]

If the US does split it will be because of the liberal agenda trying to force socialism on us. The federal govt continues to over step its bounds. I could rant about it all day but I wont. Go here http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com if your curious. Its more than just the southeast of the US that would break apart. That link basically gives a rundown of which states are on board and which are not.

Lincoln was wrong for starting the civil war. Yeah yeah yeah the south fired first. They were surrounded.

[Kryptowhite 9]

Lincoln never started the civil war. The civil war began when south carolina seceded.

Hence, South Carolina started the civil war. Facts. They are very important when discussing history.

Also starting any kind of war against the federal government would be difficult if not impossible. Its not 1800's france anymore, you need more than hand rifles. Where are they going to get soldiers? weapons? Ammunition?

who sells that stuff. US.

In the time it takes to find thousands of soldiers and properly equip them, the federal government would be able to easily swing in and restore order.

[MattShizzle 11]

Not to mention in the 1860s there weren't tanks, long range artillery, attack helicopters, strategic bombers, incapacitating chemical weapons (not WMD's - stuff like tear gas), etc.

[Z77 3]

I dunno...i heard that the reason the north had won the civil war was because they were visited by a future human race who gave them many tanks and bombs to wipe out the south. thats the REAL reason that cities such as Atlanta were burned to the ground.

P.S. Dont you just LOVE sarcasm?

[JBear 0]

I think it would be about a 30% chance if Alberta separated and joined the states.

Canada would PROBABLY separate into:

1)Atlantic

2)Quebec

3)Ontario & Manitoba

4)Saskatchewan, Alberta, BC

4a)Northern Territories, not sure if they could survive on their own... Russia would probably annex them if Alberta didn't take them over.

[metalsludge 1]

Originally posted by: Kryptowhite

Lincoln never started the civil war. The civil war began when south carolina seceded.

Hence, South Carolina started the civil war. Facts. They are very important when discussing history.

Also starting any kind of war against the federal government would be difficult if not impossible. Its not 1800's france anymore, you need more than hand rifles. Where are they going to get soldiers? weapons? Ammunition?

who sells that stuff. US.

In the time it takes to find thousands of soldiers and properly equip them, the federal government would be able to easily swing in and restore order.

quote>

Read the constitution and get back to me. Ignore what your liberal text book has taught you.

[metalsludge 1]

Originally posted by: Kryptowhite

Also starting any kind of war against the federal government would be difficult if not impossible. Its not 1800's france anymore, you need more than hand rifles. Where are they going to get soldiers? weapons? Ammunition?

who sells that stuff. US.

In the time it takes to find thousands of soldiers and properly equip them, the federal government would be able to easily swing in and restore order.

quote>

Do you think the feds can hold a millitary base when the majority of its personnel would be from the "rebellion".  I know of other government institutions that are defended by hourly waged employees. Basically whatever items stored in rebellion areas fall under rebel control

[Kryptowhite 9]

Originally posted by: metalsludge

Originally posted by: Kryptowhite

Also starting any kind of war against the federal government would be difficult if not impossible. Its not 1800's france anymore, you need more than hand rifles. Where are they going to get soldiers? weapons? Ammunition?

who sells that stuff. US.

In the time it takes to find thousands of soldiers and properly equip them, the federal government would be able to easily swing in and restore order.

quote>

Do you think the feds can hold a millitary base when the majority of its personnel would be from the "rebellion".  I know of other government institutions that are defended by hourly waged employees. Basically whatever items stored in rebellion areas fall under rebel control

quote>

I am neither liberal nor conservative. [responding to your post above this one]. Quite honestly i think both sides are idiotic and need to stop being so radical. Neither can find middle ground, which is where america has thrived on for years.

And who said that a majority of military personel would be "for" the rebellion.

A) If presidential and senatorial elections are any indicator, an overwhelming percentage of americans support our current government.

B) Most US soldiers have passionate loyalty to their country and would not sacrifice that loyalty for some bull revolution. The beautiful thing about America is that if enough people want reform, you just have to wait 4 years and then you get to change your entire government. So if you want reform, rather than cause some nonsense war and break up such a great beautiful country, you get to just simply try and persuade people to vote for who you want to see.

And you don't think the folks in the washington control the big red buttons for the missles? Who do you think they leave that job to? illegal immigrants?