Quote: (01-16-2019 02:01 AM)Waqqle Wrote:
The only reason Singapore can exist the way it does is because, aside from the obvious fact that Malaysia and Indonesia simply allow it to exist, it happens to sit in the middle of one of the most vital shipping lanes on planet Earth (which means that it technically has no need of land transport and can charge fees to ships passing through), it is an island which makes it defensible, it has invested heavily in its military hardware (which could be the strongest and most efficient in all of SEA), it has invested heavily in its military personnel and in fact has mandatory conscription for all males and mandatory continuing drills for all formerly conscripted males until they reach retirement age (no US city has anything remotely comparable to any of this), and it is on very good terms with its neighbors, any one of which could, even with its superior military equipment and training, probably destroy it in a war simply by blockading it and cutting off the roads that go into Malaysia until it starves to the point that its soldiers are too weak and demotivated to put up a fight against a much larger neighbor like Malaysia, Indonesia, or Thailand that could just swarm it in its weakened state.
By comparison, the major coastal cities in the US are literally an ocean away from any other non-American (in the geographical sense to included all of the Americas) city and would not see maritime traffic by trade vessels from other countries the way that Singapore does if they were no longer attached to the vast wealth of the greater US. In fact, pretty much all of the major coastal cities exist primarily if not exclusively to function as gateways to the rest of the country and consumers of what it produces. If they should become severed from the rest of the country, they will just become stagnant backwaters thousands of miles away from any relevant global shipping lane and surrounded on all sides by resentful peasants until they eventually give up and join whatever state has been formed by the now-dominant rural and small town folk.
Another thing to consider is that virtually all US military bases, and certainly all of those which are important, are located outside of highly urban areas.
All of this being said, I still maintain that I don’t see Americans taking up arms and seriously going to war with each other en masse or military personnel turning their weapons on fellow countrymen. I just don’t think Americans have the stomach for that sort of thing (having been in the military, I can say that I don’t think I met another soldier who would turn their weapon on other Americans either unless the world were truly ending - most of us enlisted because we wanted to do good things, get paid, and get the GI Bill; we didn’t sign up for civil war “you have been orders by the capital to subdue the districts” Hunger Games crap) and the ones who might are mostly NRA members, religious conservatives, veterans, and other similar people who would probably already be organized to engage and neutralize any ISIS or Bolshevik-type threat that might emerge long before it actually manages to. The US also doesn’t have a history, environment, or, in most places at least, culture which would be conducive to such a violent group taking over any significant amount of territory for any period of time longer than 8 minutes.
As I said in my first post in this thread, I see any hypothetical future breakup scenario being conducted in a mostly civil and peaceful way and I only see such a thing happening if and when the currency is no longer viable and/or the government is no longer able to provide benefits and salaries to all of the people who currently receive them. At this time, over 35% of Americans are on welfare as I previously mentioned and there are more who are on other forms of government assistance. Add to all of this the number of people employed in the public sector on the federal level and you probably have around half of the population receiving and, in many if not most cases, relying for their livelihood on some form of money from the government. If anything causes a collapse and a mass movement by people toward anything that gets them off their fat asses and away from their screens, it will most likely be loss of government benefits and a collapse of the currency making their salaries and benefits worth progressively less as they continue to receive the same number of dollars each period but those dollars rapidly decline in value until they just stop receiving anything, at which point questions will require answers.
Excellent post. With Singapore I'd also add though that a) their most valuable card to play in terms of defense against Indonesia and Malaysia is actually their security alliance with the US (which serves our interest due to their strategic location), and b) they didn't spend the previous several decades prior to independence trying to dictate to the rest of Malaysia how to live, so you didn't get the animosity built up that you have now between the rural parts of the US and NYC, SF, etc.
Could that sort of arrangement work in the US? Maybe. Our Constitution was written in such a way to promote local/state governance and in effect prevent large cities from dominating the political landscape but now that we've largely ditched federalism that doesn't seem to be working any more. Maybe allowing SF/Silicon Valley and maybe NYC to secede as independent city states would create a more rigid barrier that would help right the ship.
I got my Magnum condoms, I got my wad of hundreds, I'm ready to plow!