Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

How would it happen??

Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2013 6:33:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Personally, I do not think that the USA will be able to hold itself together for too much longer. The cultural and political differences are way to big from region to region and the government continues to deny states' rights. My question is(we will assume that the country does fall apart) how will it fall apart(why would it fall apart as well as if it would come apart peacefully or in war) and into what countries will it fall apart(could be two countries, or it could be five, or whatever you want).
Tell which state you live in.
I live in Georgia.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 10:41:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think the nation would split into about five countries.
The SouthEast
Northeast
Prairie States
West Coast
Alaska

I think that the Northeast would fall without the rest of the nation and would fight to rejoin, but I think that economic collapse in the northeast would stop that motion. The rest of the countries would all be relatively peaceful with each other, I can see the southeast having a military against the Middle East and I can see the West Coast having problems with the North Koreans.
The Southeast would be primarily self dependent and relatively successful. This would have a strong military and a very weak central government. This would be economically and socially conservative.
The northeast would see economic collapse. This would have a strong government and almost socialism. The military would be nonexistant because I think that it would sell all of its military.
The prairie states would all be primarily agriculture. This area will have very little military and I can see this being libertarian.
Alaska would make money off of selling raw materials and I can also see the establishment of a few factories in this area. This country will have a small military primarily for fighting off invasions. It would have a weak central government. This would be economically and socially conservative.
The West Coast would be a big tourist attraction and would be the new center for global trade. This will have a relatively strong central government and a small but advanced military. This would be socially and economically liberal.
Of all of them I would choose to live in
1. Southeast
2. Prairie states
3. West Coast
4. Alaska
5. Northeast
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 11:42:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 10:41:36 AM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I think the nation would split into about five countries.
The SouthEast
Northeast
Prairie States
West Coast
Alaska

I think that the Northeast would fall without the rest of the nation and would fight to rejoin, but I think that economic collapse in the northeast would stop that motion. The rest of the countries would all be relatively peaceful with each other, I can see the southeast having a military against the Middle East and I can see the West Coast having problems with the North Koreans.
The Southeast would be primarily self dependent and relatively successful. This would have a strong military and a very weak central government. This would be economically and socially conservative.
The northeast would see economic collapse. This would have a strong government and almost socialism. The military would be nonexistant because I think that it would sell all of its military.
The prairie states would all be primarily agriculture. This area will have very little military and I can see this being libertarian.
Alaska would make money off of selling raw materials and I can also see the establishment of a few factories in this area. This country will have a small military primarily for fighting off invasions. It would have a weak central government. This would be economically and socially conservative.
The West Coast would be a big tourist attraction and would be the new center for global trade. This will have a relatively strong central government and a small but advanced military. This would be socially and economically liberal.
Of all of them I would choose to live in
1. Southeast
2. Prairie states
3. West Coast
4. Alaska
5. Northeast

You're kidding, right? The Northeast has multiple ports that would be economically useful, much of the wealth in the nation, and is currently one of the centers of global trade.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 7:52:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You're kidding, right? The Northeast has multiple ports that would be economically useful, much of the wealth in the nation, and is currently one of the centers of global trade.

The North would be nothing but a service based economy. All it would be able to do would be to import. What would it export? The North has basically no factories or farms. It would fail agriculturally and industrially. It only has most of the nation's wealth because it takes the wealth gathered from the other regions and it is where the rich people move. If the North has any economic power, it would be because it is just a terminal for global trade but offers nothing to the world economy.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 8:09:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 7:52:45 AM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
You're kidding, right? The Northeast has multiple ports that would be economically useful, much of the wealth in the nation, and is currently one of the centers of global trade.

The North would be nothing but a service based economy. All it would be able to do would be to import. What would it export? The North has basically no factories or farms. It would fail agriculturally and industrially. It only has most of the nation's wealth because it takes the wealth gathered from the other regions and it is where the rich people move. If the North has any economic power, it would be because it is just a terminal for global trade but offers nothing to the world economy.

I disagree, the north has WAY more industrial manufacturing facilities than the south. The south has more agriculture than the north but not more manufacturing plants.
I don't have any statistics, just my observations of living in northeastern Ohio and northeastern Georgia.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 10:56:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 8:09:31 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/21/2013 7:52:45 AM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
You're kidding, right? The Northeast has multiple ports that would be economically useful, much of the wealth in the nation, and is currently one of the centers of global trade.

The North would be nothing but a service based economy. All it would be able to do would be to import. What would it export? The North has basically no factories or farms. It would fail agriculturally and industrially. It only has most of the nation's wealth because it takes the wealth gathered from the other regions and it is where the rich people move. If the North has any economic power, it would be because it is just a terminal for global trade but offers nothing to the world economy.

I disagree, the north has WAY more industrial manufacturing facilities than the south. The south has more agriculture than the north but not more manufacturing plants.
I don't have any statistics, just my observations of living in northeastern Ohio and northeastern Georgia.

Agriculture: The Northeast has one state in the top twenty of agricultural production and that is Pennslyvania at twentieth place.
Industry: Granted, my research shows that the North has more industrial power than my original guess, it is still low compared to that of the South. You lived in North East GA, that is one place that has no industry, the mountains. The SouthEast USA and West Coast have the most industry. The West Coast is followed closely by the North East though. Further research will show that if you look at percentage of people employed in industry in each state, the NorthEast acually comes in last place. Tied for first appears to be the midwest and SouthEast.
Thus, the South has more agriculture and more industry than the North(this is by percentage of people employed and amount of people employed).
Still, the North would be left with just transportation and low industry. The north would only be able to be successful if it industrialized more. But it also does not have the agricultural production. Thus, I believe that the North would collapse economically.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 11:17:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The south would have plenty of industry and would have a large agricultural sector.
The midwest would have industry and agriculture.
The West Coast would have plenty of industry and agriculture.
Alaska would have plenty of agriculture.
The North would have little agriculture and a minor industrial sector. The North is the only one with this predicament and would fail compared to the other nations.
The other nations would surpass the NorthEast relatively quickly economically and probably California would become the new center of trade, or Georgia because it has Savannah. Though, the South would desire a more self sufficient economy like what Newt Gingrich proposed.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 1:31:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/14/2013 6:33:57 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Personally, I do not think that the USA will be able to hold itself together for too much longer.
Never heard that one before...

The cultural and political differences are way to big from region to region and the government continues to deny states' rights.
Don't have to go "region to region" as there are cultural and political differences within the same regions.

My question is(we will assume that the country does fall apart) how will it fall apart(why would it fall apart as well as if it would come apart peacefully or in war) and into what countries will it fall apart(could be two countries, or it could be five, or whatever you want).
If it did, it would be a mess but I don't think it will divide into separate regions/countries. I think that progressives and their ilk would be wiped out and the country would remain in tact.

Tell which state you live in.
I live in Georgia.
NY.

The North has always had more industry than the south and it could easily do so again. It also has plenty of land available for agriculture even though it may not be in use at the moment. Again, it can easily re-purpose lands for such endeavors.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 7:17:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 1:31:00 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/14/2013 6:33:57 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Personally, I do not think that the USA will be able to hold itself together for too much longer.
Never heard that one before...

The cultural and political differences are way to big from region to region and the government continues to deny states' rights.
Don't have to go "region to region" as there are cultural and political differences within the same regions.

My question is(we will assume that the country does fall apart) how will it fall apart(why would it fall apart as well as if it would come apart peacefully or in war) and into what countries will it fall apart(could be two countries, or it could be five, or whatever you want).
If it did, it would be a mess but I don't think it will divide into separate regions/countries. I think that progressives and their ilk would be wiped out and the country would remain in tact.

Tell which state you live in.
I live in Georgia.
NY.

The North has always had more industry than the south and it could easily do so again. It also has plenty of land available for agriculture even though it may not be in use at the moment. Again, it can easily re-purpose lands for such endeavors.

Repurposing land is not going to be done easily. Stalin repurposed land and that blew up in his face. The overall climate of the North would make it difficult to grow large amounts of crops and would require the North to import a large amount of food from other places in the previous America and in the world. What about all of those facilities created just because of global trade and the service businesses. Without something to sell, these businesses would fall apart.
If the North does manage to reindustrialize, it would take a long time. In this time, the West Coast or the Southeast would be able to surpass them. On the off chance that the North does not collaps, it would still lose its place in the world economy.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 10:31:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think that the North would be the only region that actually suffers a loss through the split. The Southeast and West Coast would benefit. Alaska and the MidWest would not really benefit or lose anything.
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 10:50:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The retardation continues....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015