• BlameThePeacock
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Its not going to be a couple of politicians doing it on their own. It would likely be a referendum with popular support from the citizens (again like Brexit)

    The Federal government really has no recourse against “we aren’t sending you money any more” they can’t send in the military to make sure the money gets transferred. The military can’t achieve that particular objective.

    They could try to make an example of some key politicians, but with popular support for such a split that would likely lead to some bad outcomes for anyone who tried to enforce it.

    They don’t have any sort of legal method of replacing those people either. Anyone appointed from out of state would just promptly be ignored.

    This isn’t the same as a lot of situations where there would need to be hard borders right away that need to be defended or objectives that could be captured. There’s no need for military anything. Not that military intervention would work very well anyways, far too many soldiers would refuse orders. You’d see a lot of people refusing, walking away, or even subverting. Those states make up something like 20% of the US population, and if you add in people who have friends or families there it’s probably 30-40% of the military that wouldn’t be okay with attacking anything.

    Starving them out with a blockade? Lol, not happening. Besides, both Mexico and Canada (both massive food suppliers) have direct land connections to those states. The rest of the US is going to threaten those two countries if they send in food? No way either of them listens to that threat. The remaining US doesn’t have as much global power as you’d think.