[iamzack]

"United States" is the name of our country. We can't just let states leave. People would laugh at us.

[Colonol Dekker]

The "loosely affilited states" doesn't have the same ring to it. . . .
 
What the odds, seriously, of Texas trying to break away. . .in an actual militant fashion. Moving on down the line. Not strong I think.

[Janos]

Dunno about there, but here in England they're always banging on about making government more local and accountable (never really happens of course - it just gets more expensive and meddling).

We've got some delightfully tax-absorbant devolved parliaments set up in Scotland and Northern Ireland though. They make a lot of noise and cost a lot of money. Not sure what else they do practically apart from maybe being an olive branch to local nationalists; might need a Scot or Irishman to educate me on that.

Kinda seems like secession would be the ultimate expression if this. Fissioning into smaller bits that have their own elections (hopefully!) and policies.

That happened in the Baltic didn't it, with the old Soviet republics? Mind you, it also happened in the Balkans, and no-one ever uses the politics-verb Balkanize in a positive way...

Not comparable. Baltic states have a history of independence and are relatively homogenous, compared to former Yugoslavia. In Baltic states the previously independent states were soviet republics; after the crash they declared independence and recently their racial conflicts have been quite mild and focused on Russians, who colonized the nations by thousands during the Soviet rule. They were under single occupying command and didn't really interfere with each other - the Soviet Republics had the same borders and quite similar lifestyle as previous Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

Compare with balkans - former Yugoslavia, where the entire state racial structure and power was different. It's... well, much more a convoluted mess, with different religions and sudden lack of a unifying power met fresh and radical nationalism. First there was Tito who kept the populace - all living here and there, with bosniaks and croats and serbs living relatively happily together - and then there was no one to keep the tinpot idiots in check. Balkanization is hostile fragmentation; in Baltics the old occupying rule ended and nations went back to bussiness as it was in 1930s.

That said, I have no idea what's going on in GB so I won't comment. I just like to notice that meddling and local are not mutually exclusive. Far from it.

[Kosh]

Given the crazy stuff they are doing with their education system, they are more than welcome to leave the union.

[Sushi]

"There's a 1 trillion dollar a yaer deficit in the white house and we're terrified"

The fault for which lies more with previous Presidents than the current one, to be fair.

Wrong. The fault for which lies mainly with previous congresses, not the president. The legislative branch is the one with all of the real control over the money. The President can't raise/lower taxes or set the budget: congress does all of that. RTFC(Constitution).

Can't people just go to those tea parties and get everyone there to sign away their rights to the social security benefits they're complaining about so much?

I agree with Janos here: if I could opt out of Social Security, I would. That's impossible, of course, for a number of reasons.
1. Even if Social Security actually worked in the first place, it would cease to be self-supporting if people opted out. Everyone who could afford to deal with their own retirement would opt out, leaving only those people who couldn't afford it. There wouldn't be enough money to go around and the system would have to be either funded by other parts of the federal budget or collapse. (All of this is, of course, assumes that Social Security works as advertised, which it does not).
2. The U.S. government basically uses social security money like all of the other taxes it collects, and there's no way the government is going to let people start opting out of their taxes.

[Ghostavo]

Can't people just go to those tea parties and get everyone there to sign away their rights to the social security benefits they're complaining about so much?

I agree with Janos here: if I could opt out of Social Security, I would. That's impossible, of course, for a number of reasons.
1. Even if Social Security actually worked in the first place, it would cease to be self-supporting if people opted out. Everyone who could afford to deal with their own retirement would opt out, leaving only those people who couldn't afford it. There wouldn't be enough money to go around and the system would have to be either funded by other parts of the federal budget or collapse. (All of this is, of course, assumes that Social Security works as advertised, which it does not).
2. The U.S. government basically uses social security money like all of the other taxes it collects, and there's no way the government is going to let people start opting out of their taxes.

He means opt out of the benefits, not out of paying the taxes.

[iamzack]

Can we get them to opt out of evul-socialized fire rescue and police services also? Oh, and deny them access to evul-socialized roads? What about government gas subsidies?

[Mongoose]

Can we get them to opt out of evul-socialized fire rescue and police services also? Oh, and deny them access to evul-socialized roads? What about government gas subsidies?

There is a subtlety you're overlooking there.  The vast majority of people are perfectly happy to pay tax dollars that go to fund such services, because there are obvious tangible benefits that accompany each of them.  But even from where I'm sitting, being forced to pay into a retirement benefit fund which will be bankrupt long before I'm able to take advantage of it leaves a rather bad taste in my mouth.

[Janos]

I agree with Janos here: if I could opt out of Social Security, I would. That's impossible, of course, for a number of reasons.
1. Even if Social Security actually worked in the first place, it would cease to be self-supporting if people opted out. Everyone who could afford to deal with their own retirement would opt out, leaving only those people who couldn't afford it. There wouldn't be enough money to go around and the system would have to be either funded by other parts of the federal budget or collapse. (All of this is, of course, assumes that Social Security works as advertised, which it does not).

You keep talking about how it does not work. Well, just how exactly does it not work? It's purpose is to keep people alive. Does it suck at that?

[McCall]

Compare with balkans - former Yugoslavia, where the entire state racial structure and power was different. It's... well, much more a convoluted mess, with different religions and sudden lack of a unifying power met fresh and radical nationalism. First there was Tito who kept the populace - all living here and there, with bosniaks and croats and serbs living relatively happily together - and then there was no one to keep the tinpot idiots in check. Balkanization is hostile fragmentation; in Baltics the old occupying rule ended and nations went back to bussiness as it was in 1930s.

Now see, that would be interesting for us, as arguably the Germanic/Norman English are historically a different bunch from the original Celts. We're continental interlopers that took over half the island. Of course, that was a very very very (very!) long time ago and there has been a lot of mingling and other immigration, plus hundreds of years of mostly peacefully co-existence (as bad as they were, I don't think the Irish Troubles were as bloody as what kicked off in places like Kosovo).

But there are still lingering cultural differences and independence movements. Doesn't normally turn into a brawl too often though - at least on the mainland. If El Gordo McGabe Brownski Jong-Il keeps hanging on to power that might change, but one way or another it looks like we'll be shut of the guy next year. The poor Scots must be so embarrassed about that bloke. Wouldn't surprise me if they disown him.

That said, I have no idea what's going on in GB so I won't comment. I just like to notice that meddling and local are not mutually exclusive. Far from it.

Yep, they meddle however you put it. More local government = more people on the taxpayers' backs meddling (and blaming central government for not giving them enough power or money to meddle more). Of course, I'm very cynical about the state, so I would say that.

Has anyone ever "wargamed" the idea of a state like Texas leaving at a serious academic level? You know, how would central government respond, likely international reaction, that kind of thing?

[Nuclear1]

Texans: Secede! We don't need yer damned fdril guvment

USA: Okay...

Texans: srsly we kin defend ourselves..

USA: With what, that there Fort Hood, Lackland AFB, Fort Sam Houston, Dyess AFB...?

Texans: yeeee doggies!

USA:  Sorry bro, federal government property.

Texans:...oh

USA:  Plus, we'll be taking NASA, the postal service, FEMA, our highway system, the CDC, Social Security, and the NRA.

Texans: ...can we still keep the Cowboys?

USA: You can keep the Texans.

Texans: Gol durnit!

[BloodEagle]

Has anyone ever "wargamed" the idea of a state like Texas leaving at a serious academic level? You know, how would central government respond, likely international reaction, that kind of thing?

Contact the CIA. I'm sure they've done it.

[Narvi]

The CIA?

The military response is what the Pentagon is for. What's the big geometric shape for otherwise?

[headdie]

i imagine that file would in in a homeland defense file somewhere now

[McCall]

See, I would have expected that to be the kind of thing they would farm off to academia. If the DoD themselves started researching it, and some enterprising young officer from said state happened to come across the paperwork... the revelations could be incendiary.

Get a bunch of profs to put something together unofficially though, and you can quietly dismiss it as, "That'll never happen: the union is forever, and this is pointess conjecture!" - but only after having a bloody thorough read and taking a few notes.

I just wondered if any of you knew if any serious studies had been done.

[Scotty]

some enterprising young officer from said state happened to come across the paperwork... the revelations could be incendiary.

Only if some enterprising young officer is a flaming idiot.  It's the DoD's job to research and plan for every conceivable eventuality in regards to defense.  If that includes a plan for if Texas seceeds and threatens the U.S., that would be completely expected.

I just wondered if any of you knew if any serious studies had been done.

It's possible, and I would say even probable that some kind of study has been done on that.  One that we would be able to find out about. . . not so much.

[headdie]

I know im a brit but how about starting our own study

what do we know

1: Texas is a huge chunk of land which would need a large amount of manpower to defend.

Highly probables
1: there will be a large section of the US population that will flock to the area to defend it with reasons from anti-federal feeling to simple anarchist agenda.
2: Texas would quickly seize any US federal loyal assets in state quickly

Variables
1: a huge chunk of the armed forces will have family, friends or hail from the state so would have pro Texan sentiment, how many would lean more towards their US armed service loyalty.

2: foreign intervention
    a: Islamic fighters looking to destabilize the US or at least turn its attention inwards
    b: Ex-pats returning
    c: Official international action

3: how fast could assets be withdrawn from foreign deployment

4: Which military commanders would fall where


any thought?

[iamzack]

any thought?

US Govt has nukes.

[McCall]

Hopefully no-one takes offence at us talking about a civil war in their country! None is intended.

Playing along with Headdie and Iamzack:

Unless the Republic of Texas was to use them first, I'm guessing Special Weapons of any kind would be off the table for Federal commanders. WW2 aside, first use isn't likely from the Americans.

It is possible - depending on the amount of warning given - that Texan forces would be able to get their hands on chemical and nuclear munitions. The chemical ones would be the biggest potential threat initially, as the nuke warheads would probably be harder to set off.

The Texas National Guard only comprises around 20,000 troops. Likewise the Texas Air National Guard has about one squadron of Falcons. Not sure how many of the Reserve and Regular forces would side with them.

Texas would have to go for a political victory, backed by the threat of fighting a losing but phyrric military campaign against the Union.

With support for Kosovo and East Timor in recent memory, it could be a little awkward for the US to block a popular independence movement on their own borders - especially with the use of force.

Mind you, to the Republic's disadvantage, we have to remember that a lot of Texans will remain loyal to the US.

Who's next to chip in?

[iamzack]

I think most Texans would not be in favor of independence. Especially Texans in the US military and their families.

Besides, Texans are all fat, useless walrus-things. Like my brother.