How do get the divided states of america? Which states would

>>54573760
The state I'm from would be strong.

The state near my state that I've been raised to dislike would be weak.

Generally coastal states would probably do better, since those are the states that are already doing better but there's a few exceptions.

Even divided, each state would be strong. Each would have its specialty and each would fiercely hold onto its turf. There would be border skirmishes pushing the line couple miles here and there, but on the grand scheme of things, they all stand divide as firmly as they once stood united.
Except for Florida that remains unconquered not by its vigilance but rather through rapid fall into the state of decay both literal and metaphorical that nobody wants to take piece of.

the only interesting state to play a campaign in would be Illinois
Because on its own it would turn in to an even more lawless land than it already is.

>>54573825
Most would flounder without adequate food to support their megacities. The East Coast especially would depopulate in a flash if they didn't have Midwestern farms supporting them.

I don't think you'll see a strict state-by-state breakdown. You'll probably see coalitions of like-minded states forming nations.

I think the map from Crimson Skies works best for that sort of thing.

>>54574059
That would only happen if borders were sealed and they all had to stand on their own, anon. International trade is a thing, y'know.

>>54574094
Unless they played very nicely with the other states there would be food riots. Internationally shipping the volume of food required to sustain the Northeast Corridor would be mind-mindbogglingly expensive.

>>54574059
Doesn't New York have a lot of farms out of the city. I'm not really sure about the rest of the east coast in general though. Think Washington does, and I'm pretty sure California does as well (though I don't think that have that many that are actually food).
The real problem is that internal trade is the biggest factor in the US economy and that would be all kinds of fucked up, so there's really no telling. I'd still put my money on the bigger states like California, New York, and Texas probably doing better than most

>>54574059
>>54574094
>>54574131
It depends how the USA disintegrates and whether they cant just get a trade agreement going immedaitely

>>54573760
California would become one of the most powerful economies in the world, around the top 10.

>>54574182
California would also have the highest tax rates, to pay for the desalination plants it would need for drinkable and agricultural water, since the bordering states would reclaim their watersheds!

>>54573760
Look up "Agenda 21"

>>54574182
Cali would destroy itself.

>>54574247
Not to mention, as said above, center states would cut access to the continental aquifer. That would return most of the southern half of cali to the desert it was originally.

Coastal states surrounded by impregnable walls to keep the poors from middle america from trying to emigrate.

>>54574247
This leads in to where it gets kind of screwy in terms of which states would join up and break up

>>54573760
depends on how they separate, is it violent? then the high population states with actual value would have probably been fucked, so cali, new york, texas, oregeon washington,

not violent, then those same states would be the most likely to sustain themselves, with the exception of new york, too many fucking people. California would probably eat orgeon and washington, texas would eat the states near it too. then those two super states would stare at each other and think mean thoughts as they squabble over the midwestern farmland. Super cali probably be the best off considering they have a good position to trade with aisia still, as well as having the massive amounts of farmland to feed everyone. Super texas has easier access to the breadbasket but still they have to bring that shit in. east coast is fucked unless they get in on that action.

>>54574527
Washington/Oregon are kind of weird in that they'd probably willingly go with north Cali, but would sooner join Canada than south Cali
Canada's role in general is also kind of a big factor

>>54574166
California stop doing well REALLY fast once they stop getting the water they import from other states. They'd be bullied to heck and back unless they started conquering.

>>54574671
Wait, when did California START doing well?

>>54574716
I move for Texas and California to ally both as a defense against Mexico and to pincer bully the entire Western half of the former USA.

>>54574821
Honestly, the water-rights wars would go down pretty quickly in favor of California and Texas. Both have relatively massive populations, decent economies, international trade ties, and good amounts of industry.

Whereas the non-coastal West and Southwest are fairly low in population, don't have too many international trade ties or great economies, and don't have too much in the way of industry.

As for domestic water usage, you might see regulations that prevent farmers from pumping up $500 worth of water to grow $100 worth of alfalfa. It makes a certain sort of sense when their only cost for the water is pumping it.

There's also all sorts of reduced-water growing, such as hydroponics and aquaponics, that don't actually need farmland, but would need a lot of power, which can be provided via solar farms.

It'd take time and money, but so long as California survives the immediate, it has both.

>>54574716
California by itself is something like the 6th largest economy in the world, with trade ties all over the Pacific. It has some issues, but it's certainly doing quite well.

>>54574580
I don't know if I agree. I mean, unless you're talking about the Jefferson nonsense, but that's mainly portions of inland Northern CA and Southern Oregon, and literal nonsense.

>>54574168
Unless all trade stops and has to wait on treaties before it can go again, I don't see a major interruption of formerly-internal trade. If one State wants to try to close the borders and charge huge tolls on through-traffic, all a neighboring State has to do is be cheaper.

The coastal states also have a bunch of ports. They can import food internationally if they need to, but California is a net exporter of foodstuffs anyhow, including rice.

>>54574131
Depends on how things shake down. At the same time that people like to say "The Coast would starve without the Flyover states!", the coast is also where the flyover state farms sell their goods. No sales, no taxes.

The "flyover" stats would sadly have a lot of problems initially (perhaps to the point of collapse) because their declined or depressed local economies would have no real appeal to anyone doing business.
At best they could leverage farms like they do now, except most of those are already Monsanto-owned or other large agricultural-owned farms which would continue doing business with profitable clientele in other states.
The state could ban business farms like that I suppose, but that would basically be like removing one of the state's only sources of actual revenue, which would NOT hurt it's economy.
In theory the lack of Federal taxes would improve their local economies a bit, but in practice we see states like Kansas falling apart economically under Governer Brownback after doing that because as it turns out even if you reduce all of your taxes that strain your state economy you STILL need an actual developed and diverse economy to really benefit from that, and a lot of the flyover states don't have any because local businesses are subsidized or just not there anymore because the state wasn't really a significant enough market.
The state could feed itself with it's own farms thankfully, but nobody would really get anything better then that out of life and it would be struggling with it's own complete lack of internal infrastructure.

Yes I'm from Kansas, and yes I'm bitter.

>>54575396
>Brownback
Not to be political, but why did you guys keep electing that ass if he fucked up so badly?

>>54575413
Well he first kept his seat because he talked about Jesus a lot and I guess to some people that matters then his actual performance at his job, though I cannot speak to why.
Then when he had lower approval in the state then almost any other governor it was just gerrymandering removing any chance of him loosing.

Of course now the GOP is getting rid of him because he's an embarrassment by giving him some silly "religious ambassador" position that entails him not fucking being in Kansas anymore.

>>54573823
This is unironically true for me.

>>54574716
California alone is one of top 5 economies in the world. We also have one of the strongest agriculture encomies in the USA and supply a shit ton of food. The central valley is fertile as fuck and has a year long growing season

In a divided states settings California can easily become a powerhouse, especially if it can secure water for itself. However, California would probably try to negotiate for water rather than conquer it as we're liberal as fuck, so we might get shafted diplomatically but still refuse military action unless we're actually attacked.

Maybe it just the memes, but as someone who isn't American Texas always gave me the impression that they could become independent and not die from dehydration (California).

>>54573760
Is there still an economy left? Are the rest of the world interested or they are ignoring what happening?

>>54575618
Texas's economy is heavily centered around a lot of oil extraction and refining. They've got other stuff in there, but that's where their money is for the moment.

Should that crater, then their economy kinda tanks.

Use the crimson sky's map.

>>54575575
you don't realize just how callous and self-centered liberals actually are. just try offering a different opinion to one and see how quickly they turn on you.

California will quickly become a threat to it's pacific neighbors and it will do so under the guise of "the greater good." they will probably also be tossing around terms such as marxist utopia.

File: 1495591472046.jpg (30KB, 493x354px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 493x354px

>>54576388
>you don't realize just how callous and self-centered liberals actually are
Go home /pol/ and stop shitting up another decent thread

>>54575575
An independent California would be trapped in a miniature Chinese dilemma; mass secessions/rebellions will light up if the economy even so much as slows to 1% GDP growth for too long.

>>54576388
Nah, we pay more to Federal tax than we receive in Federal aid. California is full of pussies, or as /pol/ likes to put it: Nu-beta males. We'll be pissy towards the conservative states, but they'll just ignore us.

>>54577163
I can see that. There's groups that want to spilt California to up to 5 different states. And the rural parts which generally get no representation compared to our massive costal cities might band together.

>>54575881
Ain't goin' be no economy in the Wasteland, boy. Just death an' desolation.

>>54577931
Then the state with the most guns wins

>>54578100
Not if we kill each other first, boy. Reckon there's a whole helluva lot of folks that'll need killin' round here.

File: Untitled.png (140KB, 787x736px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 787x736px

>>54573760
The states at the top of this list would bully the fuck out of the rest and probably annex/liberate/whatever their neighbors.

>>54578252
Florida and georgia would probably form a union and bully the fuck out of everyone else in the south east

>>54578252
Those guys and gals will go home. They ain't from them states; they're just stationed there. Ain't no Ohio boy gonna fight a war against his family for Texas or Virginia.

What do you guys think would happen to the Rockies?

Coloradian here; we sit on one of the main gate ways to the Rockies. We have some decent farm land on both sides of the divide, grains on the east and fruits on the west. Water would be the biggest issue, both for ourselves and for interstate relationships. No water flows into Colorado, it all comes from rainfall, primarily on the western side. California and that dumb city in the desert use a ton of water from the Colorado river. We could damn that shit up here, but that'd cause some serious political shit storm. A great tech industry along the front range, possibly able to rival Texas'. And heavily defensible territory (or at the very least, a pain in the ass to subjugate with guerrilla warfare in the mountains, and everyone owning a gun up there) as well as an Air force academy, and a literal mountain hollowed out for a government HQ.

Would most of the surrounding Rockies States try to group up for mutual protection from the super powers on both sides? That would be a fantastic logistical position, both for trade and for protection. Or would it get nibbled to death by the super powers as they try to one up each other?

New Mexico would probably be mostly or partially devoured by Texas; eastern edge of Colorado would most likely suffer the same fate as Kansas, as its mostly all plains; Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming would probably form the core of the Rocky States; Montana and Idaho might join up as well, if Montana doesn't get taken by Canada and Idaho by Oregon.

Curious if any other people from the Rockies would like to chime in.

>>54573760
>>54574072
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=eleven+nations+theory

>>54578469
The problem is that Mexico and Canada will move in unless you form up with California, Texas, or both.
The fate of the Rocky States will likely be as proxies in wars between those four nations.

>>54578469
A rockys pack might work,it would keep californa from bullying the rest of america while also filling out the midwest
The problem is getting flanked by texas and californa
And this is all assuming valiforna doesn't fall apart because of the multiple political shitstorms that would occur

>>54578252
You also have to factor in what kinds of troops those are too, their equipment, and their ease of supplying their troops with the necessary military equipment and amenities.

Colorado has a good airforce at the ready, giving it good reach and power, but aircraft are expensive as hell to operate and maintain. Plus being land locked between West Coast and Texas makes logistics a pain if we don't have trade agreements.
East Coast would actually be really well off in that regard. Easy access to NATO equipment and trade with other European/African countries. Plus blockading the east coast is a lot harder than blockading choke points in the Gulf of Mexico that Texas would have to sail through.
I always forget about Hawaii (and Alaska as well) when we talk about Balkanizing the states. Hawaii's pretty solid; as long as it can keep its trade since it has to import so much shit, especially building materials. Though considering its position and naval superiority, it'd be pretty hard to touch Hawaii's trade.

And as meh as Coast Guard are typically seen, they could be some of the biggest influences in military operations along the eastern and western coasts.

>>54578437
Pretty much. The amount of military resources that happen to be in a given state would be a factor (of the top of my head I assume there's probably more in the south), but I don't think you could really count on those specific numbers

File: Most to Least Dependent on Federal Aid.jpg (84KB, 725x909px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 725x909px

>>54574131
>>54574094
>>54574059
Generally speaking, the states you're talking about "floundering" are also the states that already give more to the federal government than they take, and the states you're talking about supporting them take more from the federal government than they give. It doesn't take a diplomatic genius to continue sending the extra money where it always went in exchange for the food continuing to come from where it always came from after the federal middle-man dissolves. It's not guaranteed, but I don't think it's nearly as unlikely or fragile as you think it is.

The only REAL outlier to this rule is Hawaii, which both does not produce its own food, and is high on the federal dependency scale.... but Hawaii will be alright, because their main economic export, DWARFING every other, is Tourism, and I have difficulty seeing even a post-apocalyptic future where the ultra-wealthy don't want to vacation in Hawaii.

>>54578602
Hawaii would be on the cusp of beign a world naval super power seeing as most of the pacific fleets would go there if shit went bad
Depending on what caused the US to go, they may be planning pn a naval invasion of the west coast onwards in order to restore the united states

Will the South rise again? Can the Old Confederacy band together to beat back the darkness, kill the mutant hordes, and save America?

>>54578636
You can't. If the Fed is gone, either those military units were destroyed, dissolved, or became rapacious warlord hordes. Those aren't state assets. Those are loose cannons.

>>54578745
Most likely
Georgia and alabam are major food producers, carolinas have shit on lock down,florida is extreemly important also
>disney
And at that point they just bully the rest of the confeds to join back up

>>54575302
California Empire when?

>>54578782
Texas, son. If it buys back in, the rest won't have a choice, and teaming up with the others guarantees Gulf domination and Atlantic access.

>>54578757
You act like they aren't people
The armys would either go home or stay under the control of their superiors
Only the insane assholes will go full asshole warbands

File: Actually.png (21KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 700x700px

>>54578717
As someone who lives in Hawaii, there would be little, if any, desire to "conquer" anything that wouldn't be perceived as sufficiently "Hawaiian." Open warfare is bad for tourism, and the tourism industry is very Very VERY powerful here, to the point that it can exert a SHITLOAD of control over the government.

Hawaii WOULD need food, because we just plain don't farm here, save for a few statistically negligible outlier organic farms, and "agricultural tourism" where you pay to live and work on a farm for your vacation. We get... like... MOST of our money from tourism, and we wouldn't be about to give that shit up. However, we WOULD need food, and WOULD have a shitload of naval military power. I could see Hawaii selling protection to various south pacific islands, and the states on the west coast in exchange for the food resources we cannot produce.

Yes, the military/naval bases are a big political power here, but the collective will of the big tourism/hotel brands is an even bigger political power. Invasion would make it difficult for people to vacation here. Selling protection would not.

>>54578790
Never
South californa(traditionaly right wing) would want out,communist would start acting up, if they try to advance west they get fucked by the rockys, they run out of water almost immedietly, and most of their lands are deserts

>>54573760
California and Texas would become the strongest states pretty much instantly no matter the scenario.

As for weakest state, it really depends on how the country disintegrates.

>>54578745
While the region may coalesce into a loose alliance and rise to prominence, they couldn't realistically associate themselves with the old Confederacy or its symbols. It would be too controversial even in a post-breakup scenario since the Confederacy means such wildly different things to different people.

>>54578800
What superiors? The Fed is gone. At some point, it's just General McArmy or Admiral Navyson. What do they do? They don't have a boss anymore.

>>54578880
Even against the swarthy hordes of mutants and monsters?

>>54578922
It depends on how things went down
General Mcarmy and admral navyson may be planning on trying to bring back the union or they may be helping out the new governments or maybe they plan on just surviving until order comes back

No gun cuck states like California get raped to death by bullets

>>54578980
Do you think there aren't guns in California?

>>54578800
I cab almost guarantee that in the event of a federal collapse, the army at least would completely dissolve. A solid 90% just don't give a shit and are in it for a job. There is very little loyalty to the Battalion or brigade commander. They are mostly cock ups. Generals can and are even worse.

>>54578990
Have fun getting popped by rednecks with tricked out AR15s lol

A friend of mine told me Massachusetts (my current state) would skyrocket in terms of quality of life if we seceded properly and kept our trade relations. Like if we suddenly became our own country we'd be pretty high in the world in terms of education and health. Not sure if I believe it though since like everyone said, it depends how it all goes down.

>>54579212
The QOL would go down for even the most successful winners of a breakup scenario. So much of our current wealth depends on the free flow of goods, services, utilities, etc. across state borders. Massachusetts wouldn't be able to sustain all of its education and healthcare programs at the same level when it finds itself surrounded by international borders and has to make separate trade arrangements with all of them.

>>54578852
>As for weakest state, it really depends on how the country disintegrates.
No, not really, it' doesn't. Although I can see how that would be the 'reasonable' position, except for one thing:
Rhode Island.

The weakest state will be Rhode Island. They are fuck tiny.
The only way for them to survive that I can think of would be to join up with people they don't like.
Which is practically everyone else.

>>54579664
And everyone still wonders why rhode island even exist

What would happen to Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada?

Most of its just desert. Is there anything there that could let it stay together as its own state, or anything there that California, Texas, or the Rockies would want?

>>54580203
I can't even fathom what might happen to Las Vegas, but whatever it is, I'm glad I'll be far away from it

>>54579664
Rhode Island seemed like easy picking, but THEORETICALLY, the fact that it's small doesn't make it bad. It could go the small, well-run city-state route with ease. It may not have power, but it wouldn't be fucking crippled.

West Virginia on the other hand would be FUCKED without some kind of help.

>>54580240
Easy, city state with its own city militia, it is also home of Macarmyirishman, the 5 star general before the fall. This is why no one fucks with vegas, but it is still a shit hole when cpmpared to other city states like newyork and denver

>>54578695
>NJ is the one of the states least dependent on the feds

I knew we were good at something

>>54580376
You wanna bet? Everyone here is already so impoverished we wouldn't even notice. Our biggest resources are sheer grit and determination, guns, and coal.

I think in as nation-collapse scenario we'd be fine as long as everyone else leaves us alone.

>>54575396
>>54575464
Fellow Kansan here, fuck Brownback.

In a situation of national anarchy, the great plains would probably devolve into oligarchy as their piss-poor governments crumble. Lawrence will become some bloated heretical hub of culture while Topeka devolves into a similar state as all the tiny Population of Thirty church towns scattered around between swaths of farmland, with even more rampant crime and poverty.

Kansas City will be unchanged, and they'll probably actually start using the river again. Missouri will likely claim the whole thing while Kansas is busy killing each other and devolving into John Brown era strife.

Farmers would become barons (there's an entire culture of millionaire farmers out here with drone collections and McMansions, it's the weirdest fucking thing), and ownership of whatever government remains would likely land on them.

Missouri would probably be similar, and I'm not going to pretend to know anything about Nebraska or Oklahoma.

>>54580466
>I think in as nation-collapse scenario we'd be fine as long as everyone else leaves us alone.
Said the hunter-gatherer to the farmer, probably.

I'd just like to point out if we're talking about a total shit hitting fan collapse the states without some kind of extractable energy reserve are fucked.

Alaska is fucked too, despite their hardy nature and massive oil reserves they pretty much rely on the rest of the states to import food, textiles, machined goods, refined fuels etc

>>54580446
If theirs one thimg NJ is good for, it's orginized crime,
Reminder "everythings legal in jersey

>>54580466
Maybe you're right.

My family is from West Virginia, but I've only been there once to visit my Grandfather.

Dude, I was shocked at the level of poverty those fuckers were in.

>>54580524
Listen dude, there's enough flat land here to farm, pretty much everyone has some level of skill in bushcraft and proficiency with firearms, we have fuel for ages, some of the most defensible terrain on the planet, and literally everyone outside the cities is either family or close friends with each other. Our poverty is our strength. We're old school here, if something breaks we just go to the workshop and make a new part because we can't afford to buy it. If the car breaks down we fix it ourselves because we can't afford to take it to the garage.

Our only real threat would be outside incursion, and as America's own miniature Switzerland, I'm not really worried about that either as long as they leave the jets at home, which they will. Anyone with air assets is going to be using them to defend their home turf from the other guy with air assets instead of using their now-irreplaceable planes and munitions to bomb dirt farmers.

Or epidemic-scale disease, I guess. But everyone is fucked in that scenario no matter where you are.

Utah goes openly theocratic and starts Crusading

File: North_Star_Blankets.jpg (174KB, 467x640px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 467x640px

>>54578695
Never thought I'd see a list that has my home state of Minnesota so close to New Jersey or Delaware on any subject.

Oh but don't get me wrong, this place would get weird fast. There's going to be at least one local cult to Prince, if it doesn't exist already now.

Rust belt bands together and becomes the most powerful nation to arise from post-balkanized America

>>54580509

Did four years in Topeka, and Topeka is the kind of place where you talk about living there in the same terms as prison time. Funny enough, I worked for one of the land barons and interacted with the Brownbacks socially. From my every interaction he's a good guy, and he genuinely believes a goodly percentage of what he says. He just has the unfortunate characteristic of being dead wrong, and on the big shit.

>>54580783
I've lived in Topeka for 21 years, and it's absolutely on par with prison time. I've done house work and animal care for a couple of rich farm families; they paid me like $15 an hour, and fed me for free, but also treated me like a third world servant to the point where I had to quit.

Brownback is one of those sad cases of someone genuinely believing that their bullshit is the right thing. On one hand, I'm glad he's getting dragged off to DC. On the other hand, I'm terrified by the fact that the office will be run by a guy whose idea of religious freedom is a legal public discrimination statute.

Pretty sure the entire city will crumble with the rest of Kansas in OP's proposed situation.

>>54580669
No, I mean, prosperity counting on not a single group trying to take your land and raping your women is not a stable arrangement of civilization.

Either the weak eat the strong, or the weak band together to become strong, or the weak becomes just bothersome enough to scare off the strong, or the weak allies with the strong, or the weak plays 2 opposing strongs like a fiddle.
But wishing the strong to go away doesn't work.

>>54575302
>I don't know if I agree. I mean, unless you're talking about the Jefferson nonsense, but that's mainly portions of inland Northern CA and Southern Oregon, and literal nonsense.
hardly nonsense
quite a lot of sentiment i've seen from "native" families up here in WA tend to be that the entire state is going to shit because of californian migrants. the common line given is that the average person from there is a horrible idiot that barely understands common decency, let alone how to hold a conversation

>>54581062
Is there something about
>As America's own miniature Switzerland
that doesn't get the point across?

I'm not saying "oh we're fucked if anyone decides to mess with us sure hope they don't", it's that our unique society allows us a great chance of success in a collapse scenario. The only threats to us are external. We won't starve, we won't freeze, we have plenty of water, our only threats are disease and outside incursion. And anyone that tries to invade us is sticking their dick into a nest of extra-pissed off hornets.

You seem to be missing the point my man, modern civilization and it's comforts and luxuries only make us look like we're weak. In a shit-hitting-fan scenario, we become a superpower over night, if only for the fact that we'll be one of the only places where the lights still turn on.

>>54573760
This thread certainly won't devolve into /pol/ level left coast/right coast v flyover states. Not at all.

>>54573895
For your listening pleasure.
http://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/763/web
Let's see what's going on tonight.

>>54581454
It's really not though, I think you've just spent too much time on /pol/

Really, I mean it is 4chan and we're all assholes faggots and autists, but some boards do tend to lend themselves towards more civil discussion.

>>54581454
You're at post 90 dude. This thread isn't devolving into anything unless you force it to

>>54573823
This. Fuck Maryland.

>>54578100
That's probably Arizona. They get most of their water from wells too.

>>54574166
>I'm not really sure about the rest of the east coast in general though.
Maine actually beat out california in a lot of measurements of organic and local food and califags were massively buttmad about it

>>54578514
Yup. Bought and read that book. Keep going back to it, too. However, I don't think the "Far West" would be viable and would end up annexed or controlled by various other nations.

>>54578790
Probably would be called Pacifica or the Pacific Union, likely to include Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Idaho, and possibly parts of Montana. The latter two likely by force.

Hitting the Rockies would be like hitting a wall, and Left Coasters (as per 11 Nations Theory) aren't really the crusading type.

>>54578990
I'm fairly liberal, from California, and have guns in the house. A lot of my friends did, too.

>>54580203
Nevada would probably go to California. The rest might just become useless empty land.

>>54581147
It's nonsense. Loud nonsense, but nonsense. There's nowhere near any actual level of support for it, and it's all fiananced by foreign - and I mean non-American - people. So's the "Split California Into Five" movement.

>>54583335
Well, y'know what they say, if you do decent when there's low expectations....

>>54578790
IMPERIA PACIFICA

SCHWARZENEGGER REX

>>54578331
I was thinking the same thing
good shit

File: 6a00d8341c145e53ef011570b037d5970c.jpg (38KB, 450x216px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 450x216px

>>54583818

So far we have
>DIXIE LAND RETURNS
>Maybe californanien empire
>naval super power hawaii
>Rockys defense pack
>Texas
>las vegas city state
>the free city of providence
I would imagine denver and new york city would be individual free citys

>>54575396
>At best they could leverage farms like they do now, except most of those are already Monsanto-owned or other large agricultural-owned farms which would continue doing business with profitable clientele in other states.
In this situation, I think those acres would quickly be nationalized.

>>54573760
Massachusetts here, we're taking Maine back.

>>54581259
>>54580669
Dude, switzerland is a land of bunkers and bankers - lots of money there, not so much in the natural resources.

From what you're saying, you don't sound like switzerland, and certainly not a superpower - what you sound like is that you'll be one of the new nations' Vietnam.

Someone is going to want resources, or to secure a border, or just want the prestige of winning a war, and your methed-up gun-toting hill people will have a whole new generation saying "You weren't there man". Hell, methamphetamines have been used to create furious combat pace since at least blitzkrieg, your boys will scare the shit out of anyone who doesn't lead the way with Rainbow Agent herbicides and heavy artillery

You'll probably defend Appalachia, but you won't be a superpower - there's no projection, no trade.

>>54573823
Ohio is an opioid-addled wasteland.

>>54586407
Correct
t. Michigander

whatever happens we will seize the opportunity to march on our hated enemy Ohio and strafe their debaucherous citizens with our A-10s

New hampshire is quickly annexed by massachusetts, because you massholes still need a place to vacation and we need the money pumped into our economy.

New Jersey would likely be fine. We have plenty of farms, rivers, and ocean access. We'd likely have trade agreements with NYC almost immediately, and would probably shell Philly for the hell of it.

>>54574166
The question is whether the rural parts of states like New York, Washington, and California would side with the big cities or not. In Washington at least, east and west of the Cascades might as well be different states for how different they are politically. NorCal and SoCal are also on opposite ends of the political spectrum.

File: 1436595787434.gif (290KB, 500x677px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 500x677px

>>54586407
>>54586487

>mfw I live in Cincinnati
>mfw that's the Ground Zero of the opiod epidemic

We're already implementing a policy to conserve the drug that reverses overdoses by refusing to administer it to people who've ODed over three times.

>>54580509
Oklahoma would probably be split between the five Indian nations and a collection of oil baronies. Or just be swallowed by Texas.

Truth be told there would coalitions of states instead of fifty different countries since if that ever did happen, Mexico and Canada would try for a landgrab.

>>54573760

Oregon here. The entire populations of Eugene and Portland would defect to California leaving us nothing but gun enthusiasts and outdoorsmen. I think Washington would be bros with us. Dunno about Idaho, but I think we'd be okay.

File: 1500353831547.gif (2MB, 228x170px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 228x170px

I've always wanted to GM a Twilight 2000 campaign about the Union dissolving and the PCs playing soldier in one state or another's army, but the risk of political butthurt is too great.

>>54588969
I was in Dayton and a smaller town just north of it about a month ago for a concert. I thought my tiny hometown in Indiana was sad, but man. Dayton and Piqua were just... depressing.

File: wrong.gif (1MB, 480x287px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x287px

>>54575464

>gerrymandering
>in an election for governor

>>54589160
I've heard nightmare stories about Dayton and Cleveland, man. Down here in Cincinnati we at least try very hard to have some pride for our history and reclaim the neighborhoods lost to us by the blacks (Over The Rhine was the deadliest neighborhood in the country for a while there) but it seems like Dayton hasn't even bothered.

Columbus is good though, it actually feels like a city. Ohio State and their campus is downright magical, and from the stories I've heard the climb they took to get to as it is now is downright meteoric (used to be a shitty state school, now it's pretty exclusive, surprising part is it's not awash with the SocJus bullshit you hear about coming from schools.)

But yeah, Cincinnati is a warzone while Dayton/Cleveland are just The Zone.

>>54576388

To be fair, that's true for pretty much any strong political belief. It certainly applies to liberals, and it certainly applies to conservatives.
The difference is that conservatives tend to be more organized, or at least try to be.

>>54573823
>tfw you live in a shit state surrounded by bro-tier states
>Wisconsin, land of nice cheese and sausage people
>indiana, at least it doesn't have chicago
>Iowa, chill farmer people
>missouri, stupid rednecks, but they're the only state that is able to equivocate IL's shittiness and the only one willing to ally with us.

My state is so fucked....

>>54589327
>indiana
>bro-tier

Indiana is like the flyover state to other flyover states. I lived there for years and it has absolutely nothing going for it.

>>54579029
This is one of the things that is beneficial about a regimental system to maintain cohesion.

>>54589415
I'd rather have a flyover state than a flyaway state

>>54578437
Was thinking this the second I opened the pic.

>>54578252
You need to post a list of where the most service members are drawn from rather than where they're stationed. Unless the state can move their family outta whatever state they're in those soldiers ain't sticking around much less fighting.

Im unsure as to how Wisconsin would do.

File: 6a18041c9647029c54955af3ebce85de.jpg (163KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 2000x1333px

>>54573760
>>54574182
>>54574247
>>54574671
>>54575302
>>54575575
>>54577163
There are a few things to consider with California. The first is water. While California could theoretically be cut off of the Colorado river, that is entirely dependent on up-river states actually having the funding, resources and manpower to both construct and man new dams and pumps. Its dependent on Arizona, Utah and Colorado actually being able to enforce anything (Nevada would join up with California pretty quickly). None of the existing river states have the manpower to maintain the existing dams which would quickly deteriorate at which point California just needs to maintain its existing pump to keep its access(we still border the river). Though in all likelihood California would use its massive tax revenue that is now not being funneled to other states, to pay for the water, avoiding the issue entirely. Everyone is happy. California ensures its water resources and up-river states get to keep the lights on and have vegetables. They also have a buffer against Texas of harsh deserts which are predisposed to ensure that California is alive.

The second thing which people forget is that while California is strapped for water resources. Those supplies go to growing a majority portion of the Unions fruit and vegetable supply. It is in everyone best interest to ensure that the water keeps flowing in California lest food prices skyrocket.

We also may not stay as liberal as the cities currently are. They will probably have to acquiesce a few points to conservative rural areas in order to ensure stability, especially in firearms.

File: 1500646385821.jpg (4MB, 3615x2546px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3615x2546px

>>54575302
>>54581147
>>54583788
One thing we have to consider is that in any independent California scenario is that it would most likely become a federal system which would allow the rural regions the autonomy they desire. Additionally it is a lot more likely that the cities make compromises for national security than sparking civil war. Interestingly I one met a major Jefferson supporter who was in favor of that "Calexit" bullshit because he felt that the rural regions would achieve the level of autonomy they wanted throughout being states in an independent California.

I have looked into the Jefferson movement and I am sympathetic to their concerns. Representation here is fair on paper in terms of non-partisan redistricting and representatives/population but that means little when the population scales are so tipped in cities favor.

That being said, I don't think Jefferson would work as a state. They have wide approval in low density areas but the big economically viable and taxable cities like Redding straight said no and Chico is much more liberal than surrounding areas and is built heavily on a California state school. They also based things off the notion that they would get tax money from Lake Tahoe and that isn't happening. I think the state would fail due to the complete lack of a viable tax base and economy.

On the flip side, things can't go on the same way they always have. Its debatable as to how much the state can do to help the north (the death of logging actually had very little to do with the state) but there needs to be a change in allowing more autonomy for local areas to place in the laws they want. LA shouldn't be able to dictate what everybody does, and more effort and care should be placed into the rural regions. I want to work things through and not give up on our people in the north.

Btw, I was thinking of starting an /int/ thread about what we can do to fix our state but I don't know if it deserves its own thread or should go on /cum/?

>>54575302
>California has money

You're right on a few points but a lot of California's luxury good production and entertainment requires massive subsidy and could not keep it afloat as a self sustaining economy. Federal disaster relief and management disappears and so California picks up the whole multi billion dollar bill.

In the case of New England, it'd be agriculturally reliant on Canada, not the rest of the United States, even more so if NAFTA or an analogue is maintained between American successors and Mexico and/or Canada.

The vast majority of New England's produce comes from nearby Canadian farms, where it's far cheaper to import food from, due to a variety of reasons including distance.

Also, the Quebec – New England Transmission and its planned expansion means that New England is energy reliant on Canadian hydroelectricity, which could be supplemented with the offshore wind power that's being linked into the New England grid. The London Array has a capacity of like 630 MW.

New England's also got a fairly stable defense industry, via Raytheon, Sikorsky, a lot of think tanks, Bath Ironworks, and so on. Provides several hundred thousand jobs.

I keep mentioning New England as a region, because I feel that banding together, despite some regional animosity, is a far better option than falling prey to some sort of expansionist NY or hungry Canada. It'd probably end up some kind of very wealthy, advanced, maritime welfare state. Eastern Seaboard alliance also seems likely.

>>54573760
>how I make united of state to each other fight
Убeй ceбя, тoвapищ

>>54592427
In the case of the south east, shit gets fucked by dixie land brought to you by walt disney

>>54573760
Montani semper Liberi!
WV strong but poor.
fuck you other Virginia
Fuck you Maryland
Other states we border are okay.
ANd Fuck california for being california

>>54573760
Flood the midwest and southwest. Freeze over the northern states into tundra forest, the south is also thicc woods and swamp.
Everyone regressed back to bronze age levels.

>>54573823
Missouri is terrible. Why else would they name the damn state Misery?

Well Columbus, Ohio is the back us capital of America
It has the infrastructure & resources to stand alone
It has natural defenses
It is a part of every "belt" so we have a bit of everything here
We have a ton of skilled laborers/trained professionals
We stay profitable & growing even during recession
All the best food is here
We invented flight
We have the most astronauts
Many Presidents have come from Ohio

Detroit is a cesspool of human filth & Flint has shit instead of water. How can that state up north compete?

Ohio is a micronation, everything in America is represented here. We are America

>>54596087
>We are America

Is that why so many Ohioans want to leave this planet?

>>54596255
Manifest Destiny

We dont want to leave the planet so much as we are those that will found the new frontier

>>54590508
The problem with the rural voters feeling like their votes don't matter is that in any fairly-apportioned representative system, they're outnumbered.

By a lot.

The reason why the coastal areas in California dominate politics is because that's where all the people are. We could switch to "Vote for a Party, Party gets Legislative seats equal to their share of the vote" instead of district-by-district, and they would STILL be outnumbered.

Now, are they being shafted in terms of policy? That's a discussion that could be had, but many of the complaints I've seen are ones that can't be acted on, or are about policies that are a net good for California.

I don't know if more local autonomy is a good thing for issues such as environmental regulations and water usage, as those activities can impact other localities. Whereas on other issues such as wages or curfews or zoning, localities have a fairly decent ability to set things themselves.

Now, if we need infrastructure spending out in the rural areas, sure. I don't think they want to raise taxes to see it done.

>>54590200
I think the dumbest thing I've ever seen in a "dissolved Union" show was last season on The Last Ship where the new governor of California kept demanding other regions send them oil.

You would think writers living in Hollywood would be smart enough to know that half the houses in Beverly Hills are facades covering oil derricks. Do they think the La Brea tarpits are just an isolated pool of muck?

>>54590508
Same thing is happening in Washington state. Last year there was a bullshit public transit bill calling for twice the state's budget in taxes. Pierce county, Eastside, and Snohomish won't have any of it even start construction for 20 years but we all have to pay for that shit because a million Seattlites who don't have to pay property taxes voted yes.
Really fucking sucks to pay an extra $500 on your property tax every year for some other city's light rail.

File: 7b1639587fff9d85b28d8bcd306e8627.jpg (40KB, 278x800px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 278x800px

>>54597535
>>54598210
I think California's problem here is perception. Not necessarily the failure of the state to account for rural areas but their inability to SHOW that they care. Not to say that there aren't gaps that need to be filled.

For example a major complaint of rural Californians and Jefferson supporters is the perception that the state government handicapped logging in the state for ecology, destroying local economies. While in reality the collapse of logging was due to the Pacific Logging Company getting bought out and then engaging in highly irresponsible strip logging, causing the collapse. By the time it could recover, logging had become cheaper in the south-lands. If they knew it wasn't Sacramento that ruined their livelihoods then Jefferson would probably have a lot less support.

Another complaint is water. Central valley/delta folks complain that they have to let water pass them by to supply wasteful cities and keep a little fish alive (delta smelt) while mountain/northern folk complain of having to let water pass them to supply the valley/city. What most people don't realize is that cities here only use about 10% of our supply yet people continue to believe that they are throwing away an undue amount of water for the cities. What we could do would be to restrict some water use in the cities to curb wasteful shit, which wouldn't do anything, but would show the rural people and northerners that we are willing to make a good faith effort to hold ourselves back and not throw our weight around, and that's really all anyone wants, good faith, even if it is ineffective. Also about that delta, the fish isn't the only thing at stake. To be short either the rivers flow westward, or the pacific flows east. I'm sure the farmers/north would have a lot less "goddamn city liberals" sentiment if the state was more open about the threat to delta/valley farming that over use poses. The state could also push a drought resistant crop program to relieve pressure.

File: 0625california02.png (107KB, 960x807px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 960x807px

>>54597535
>>54598210
>>54598355
Also we need to funnel some goddamned infrastructure into the north and mountains. The roads should not be this bad. Funnel money into rural/decentralized industries.

And let them have their fucking guns. I don't know why this is so hard for us to figure out.

God damn.

>>54598210
Stuff like that makes me honestly think that if Coastal States like NYC, California, Oregon and Washington did secede, would the non-coastal parts just secede from them and petition to rejoin the union?

>>54598642
I can only really speak for California, but I can see that happening, all things considered.

A lot of the people I know in what would become Jefferson have beef with Sacramento, and only to a lesser degree with the Federal Government. Faced between the US or a independent California, I can see a large portion of the pro-Jefferson folks I know leaning towards rejoining the union

>>54598642
>>54598714
There would probably be a process of negotiations and concessions they would go through before even thinking about leaving the union. I don't think they would try to leave "as is", they would have to meet those ares somewhere in the middle to satisfy them, otherwise secession isn't happening at all.

>Minnesota slowly becomes part of Canada.
>No one can really tell the difference

>>54598355
You hit the nail on the head. The problem is primarily they have these false assumptions. What can you do about someone convinced that tax money is going from the rural areas to the cities and refuse to change their mind when looking at numbers showing otherwise?

People feel like they're being left out, and there are those who are preying upon those feelings for their own benefit. "We need to reduce regulations to bring lumber jobs back!", say companies who will profit, and the residents who will see only scraps will cheer.

>>54598406
Roads are a local issues IIRC. As an urban dweller I don't mind my tax money going to pay for roads in rural areas, but its usually the lack of local tax money that results in poor roads, not State priorities.

>let them have their fucking guns

I'm pretty damn libbylib and I partially agree. Guns are a dangerous tool, but I'm pretty certain that the needs of a sparely populated area that still has dangerous wildlife about is quite different from the urban cores of Los Angeles and San Francisco. I'd rather see more local granularity on gun issues.

As long as people don't treat them like toys and act respectfully with them, I find myself not overly caring.

>>54598642
It has precedent with West Virginia, but this thread would be assuming the dissolution of the Union; there's nothing for them to rejoin.

>>54598914
I think our best bet is to do two things.
1. Alter the state government to provide more local control for certain issues to ensure community autonomy.
2. Provide a major show of good faith to rural counties. We have managed to unfuck our budget and get a surplus in the past, maybe we can do it again. Then maybe we take that surplus and funnel it into a massive development fund for the rural counties both economic and infrastructural, like a rural "new deal". A beacon of indisputable proof that the state is looking out for them.

Btw am I the only one whose noticed the massive hypocrisy surrounding California's faults? People are harsher on California than other states in general but its so much more apparent here. People scream about California's supposed failure to address Jefferson and rural areas but we're not even that bad by union standards especially since were one of the few states who actually practice non-partisan redistricting. Texas legislators have long been guilty of shameless gerrymandering and hold open contempt for Austin/liberal areas as do most Texas posters. The south still hates the shit out of black people (and yet more gerrymandering). Cascadia has very similar rural vs. city problems. Yet people act like California is the only place whose shit stinks as far as addressing non majority needs is concerned.

Hell, I would even go as far to say that the Californians here are the only ones who actually show self awareness about this type of thing. Everyone else just sits there circle-jerking about how homogeneous and perfect they are.

>>54600032

Part of it is generally the "see a splinter in another's eyes before you notice the log in yours" attitude.

Another part of it is the general stated liberal value of "we care about everybody!" that makes whatever failings exist much more visible and hypocritical, as opposed to the somewhat more shameless "got mine, fuck you" that I strawman conservatives as being.

Overall I think all states should switch to using this computerized system for restricting: http://bdistricting.com/2010/

That said, it'd be a cold day in hell when the duopoly in all states gives up its power in such a manner.

I agree with you on most other points.

>>54600032
To play Devil's Advocate, at least in regards to Texan contempt for Austin, it's that Texans feel like Austin is increasingly being settled by people who not only don't seem to care about Texas, but are full of contempt for it. Like you go to dance halls outside of urban Austin as you start entering the rural areas, and it gets full of urban hipsters who go in, diss the locals and their stuff. Basically, it's the feeling that, while Austin had always been liberal, that liberalism attracted even more, and it just compounds itself. I guess you could make the same argument it happens to rural areas.

Either way it just speaks of increasingly polarized American society has been getting over the past few decades.

>>54588412
An alliance of the tri-state area would be a pretty big regional power honestly, and could probably hold on to a large enough area of farmland to feed itself. Hell, the old rust belt in Pennsylvania could possibly be put back into use to produce the arms required.

>>54600032
> A beacon of indisputable proof that the state is looking out for them.

I don't think it'll work that way. It'll be all "Government Overreach" and "Tax and Spend Liberals!". Not that I still wouldn't go for it. I like nice things, I want my fellow citizens to have nice things too.

>Btw am I the only one whose noticed the massive hypocrisy surrounding California's faults?

Nope. The conservatve parts of California really are outnumbered by the liberal, and the legislature is fairly representative of how the voters go. As opposed to other states, where winning 45% of the vote gets a party 26% of the seats, or in Congress, where there have been years where one party had more votes in aggregate than the other, but ended up as the minority.

It's all projection and what >>54600174 said about seeing splinters in others before noticing the log in you.

Another difference is California badmouths the conservative areas but keeps it to badmouthing. As far as I'm aware, outside actual statewide issues, there's nothing like the Bathroom Bill or bans against municipalities setting higher minimum wages.

>>54600174
>general stated liberal value of "we care about everybody!" that makes whatever failings exist much more visible and hypocritical
You possibly have a point here. If I promise to help a lot and only help a little, some folk would be more upset with me than at the guy who promised to piss on your dog and followed through.

Your point on redistricting I disagree with. Changing the borders by land we vote will still cause the same problem as people move, and Game Theory will will have a natural gravitation to two coalitions. Just elminating political gerrymandering won't fix the natural gerrymandering that occurs as people cluster.

Want to fix the duopoloy? Make it so voting for third parties doesn't toss your vote away. Ranked Elimination, or At Large Apportionment.

File: crab cavalier.gif (2MB, 487x304px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 487x304px

>>54581892
Them's fightin' words, anon. I'll snip you, I will!

>>54600032
California gets all the attention because it's so large. Most other state's internal issues don't really have that much play as far as national attention goes. Illinois would be a far better example to use since the Chicago area more or less controls the state government.

Ironically using the computerized system you linked in my state would weaken the black vote and give the Republicans a slight advantage.

>>54581892
Marylander here.

Maryland would be one of the weak ones. The only ones who own guns are ruralfags who will flee to Pennsylvania or Virginia or WVa, or gangbangers who will massacre each other. And DC is just going to be nuked, it's inevitable.

>>54600624
Clearly we need to weaponize Old Bay.

>>54600624
Maryland will be used as a border region by some sort of alliance of Virginia and the Carolinas against the tri-state area alliance. Might not be THAT bad, but there'd definitely be a military presence, and if tensions between those two regional powers flare up it could see an unfortunate amount of warfare.

>>54598914
>I'm pretty damn libbylib and I partially agree. Guns are a dangerous tool, but I'm pretty certain that the needs of a sparely populated area that still has dangerous wildlife about is quite different from the urban cores of Los Angeles and San Francisco. I'd rather see more local granularity on gun issues.

I'm a liberal homo myself and I once went to /k/ and asked them why, why on earth they needed 'assault rifles'

Beyond the usual screeching of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, I did get some good answers.

1. They aren't assault rifles. They're semi automatic, like any other rifle. They just use the m14 frame cause it's common

2. Because it's so common, they're relatively cheap, and robust. They're just good value working rifles

3. They're good for varmints and hogs, which anyone in the south know are a huge safety and property issue. Wild hogs are rampant in the Delta area and Texas

4. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED REEEEEE

5. There very often already are fairly strict regulations on these weapons in MOST area's. The issue is a. the few areas where it isn't, b. the comical ineptitude and corruption of the ATF, and c. criminals break laws.

>>54600685
I thought shotguns were the preferred method of dealing with hogs. Then again, I'm not a gun person.

>>54600656
>take crabs
>get them hopped up on old bay and beer
>turn them loose and let them tear our enemies to shreds
>steam the bloated and tired surviving crabs
>victory

>>54600684
Don't let it end this way. Remember the last time we were a border region between two hostile powers?

>>54600685

>b. the comical ineptitude and corruption of the ATF

Well, that's not always 100% their own fault. The regulations on them are really stupid in some places (Like not being able to keep electronic records of gun sales means that tracking sales means going through physical documents and microfilm)

>>54600739
Back then, West Virginia broke off from Virginia and became its own state JUST to join with the north. Times have changed a bunch.

I don't know much about Maryland, despite going to school here. The regional identity seems pretty split, though, so I'm not really sure what'd happen.

>>54600721
What's your delivery system? The Alaskans might want to know.

>>54573823
I'm from california and I want it to burn

>>54600492

Yeah, I forgot to add ranked elimination. Ideally everything would go in at once, and in time hopefully the Democrats and Republicans will splinter into their various factions... though through inertia alone I expect them to remain the big dogs, but at least not to the point of duopoly.

What's at-large apportionment?

>>54600594

Well, that's the way things would roll. It won't be to everyone's ideals, but it would be blind to anything but geography and population numbers.

Ideally we would also have ranked elimination, or perhaps mixed-member proportional representation like in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSX

Can you imagine if the American political parties had to build a parliamentary coalition like the other republics of the world?

>>54598914
>I'd rather see more local granularity on gun issues.
Your civil liberties do not depend on your ZIP code. The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed against infringement to all Americans, not just rural Americans. Rural areas may have coyotes and wolves, but Los Angeles has a lot more gang violence.

>>54600685
All perfectly good arguments about salt weapons you're wrong about the 'm14 frame' thing that doesn't really make any sense but I'll spare you my gun autism unless you're honestly curious

>>54600715
>I thought shotguns were the preferred method of dealing with hogs. Then again, I'm not a gun person.
Nah, having a 30-round mag is actually REALLY useful for hogs, they can be pretty dangerous if they charge you and a pump action is a little clumsy in that. They do work, don't get me wrong, but my AK is actually a really practical gun for hogs.

>>54600881
All I know is what /k/ told me: gun manufacturers make lots of guns like that because they're popular, so they're cheaper.

File: 135829579184.jpg (167KB, 1001x765px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1001x765px

>>54600973
The M14 is just a kind of gun, pic related. Yes, both are the same gun.

"Assault weapons" legislation tends to target features that don't make a gun deadlier or anything - in this pic the black one is an "assault weapon" because it has a different grip and, frankly, looks scary and militaristic.

>>54601017
It's the top one also bolt action?

File: 1414873107889.jpg (312KB, 984x1042px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 984x1042px

>>54600764
>Well, that's not always 100% their own fault. The regulations on them are really stupid in some places (Like not being able to keep electronic records of gun sales means that tracking sales means going through physical documents and microfilm)
The ATF is pretty retarded, though. It's a problem because there are a lot of nonsense edge cases where configuring the exact same firearm in a slightly different manner may, or may not, be a felony - and even asking the ATF may get contradictory answers because their guidelines are pants-on-head retarded.

The string bit is not a joke.

>>54601068
Nope - those are both M14s in different furniture. The M14 is a semi-automatic rifle.

>>54601089
Wrong the M14 is not a semi-automatic rifle. The M1A is. The M14 is full auto.

>>54601017

I'll admit, as an Aussie, I've never really gotten what 'Assault weapon' means. Is that just the capacity for fully automatic fire? (Which isn't really even something you are supposed to do much with weapons as it shits all over your accuracy)

>>54601075

I don't entirely blame the ATF. In part because guns are such a wide and varied area that basically any regulation you write is doing to end up with weird edge cases. Things don't fit nicely into video game categories.

Not saying it's smart or that they don't fuck up, just that I don't think it's capable to be entirely without weird edgecases when people start rules lawyering.

>>54601075
How would they react to the tactical flintlock? Mocking laughter?

>>54601130
Traditionally 'assault' weapons are semi auto-to-auto firing weapons. It was meant to be a bridge between the standard infantry rifle and the squad LMG. The military definition is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

The LEGAL definition of assault WEAPON is much murkier and more confusing, and despite being conflated with assault rifles, is not the same thing.

"In the United States "assault weapons" are usually defined in legislation as semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military firearms, including assault rifles. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, codified a definition of an assault weapon. It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and two or more of the following:

a folding or telescoping stock
a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
a bayonet mount
a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor
a grenade launcher
Some states have passed more restrictive laws, with more inclusive definitions of assault weapons. One example is the NY SAFE Act, which changed the restriction to one or more (rather than two or more) of the above features, and expanded the restricted muzzle devices beyond just flash suppressors to include compensators and muzzle brakes."

It should be noted this has nothing to do with automatic fire as automatic fire weapons have been outlawed for civilian use since 1934.

>>54601199
It completely depends what kibble is on the flintlock. It could be legally defined as an assault weapon if it had a bayonet mount.

>>54601130
There are a lot a definitions but really it comes down to "It looks scary and black, like the ones in the video games my son plays"

Oddly is has nothing to do with automatic weapons, which are heavily restricted, rare and pretty much never involved in crimes. Soccer moms THINK that scary-black-handgrip = spews billions of infant-seeking grenade bullets that also spread autism. Semi-automatic confused people when it simply means "it fire bullet once when pull trigger, no slidy pully twisty needed"

The examples of the same gun mounted in glossy wooden furniture and scawy militarybabykiller hardware and reactions from focus groups shows that people are bad are critical thinking.

>>54573823
New Jersey would be...

Fuck it New Jersey would be absolutely the same boring corrupted mafia run swampland forest with the occasional city or town. I doubt anyone would notice anything different beyond that gas has gone from two dollars to three. Well that's assuming USD is still worth shit and being used but you get my point.

File: 1358175931218.png (2MB, 2000x1200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x1200px

>>54601130
No, but leftist politicians want people to be confused on that topic and happily conflate them. In US law, "assault weapons" are semiautomatic magazine-fed firearms with a number of secondary characteristics - like having a pistol grip, folding or sliding stock, bipod, bayonet lug, et cetera. It's pretty fucking stupid as a concept. Machine guns (under US law any gun firing more than one bullet per trigger pull is a machine gun, a minigun and an M4 are legally the same, firearms-wise) are under much stricter legislation.

It leads to a lot of cases like pic related, where a firearm may be legal in one configuration and illegal in another, despite not changing its caliber, fire rate, mode of operation, ballistic properties, accuracy, or lethality at all.

>>54601113
That's right. Sorry, I haven't had coffee tonight. Both of those rifles are M1As, a civilian version of the M14.

>>54601168
They do a worse job of it than the gun community, though. It's retarded that a pistol with a foregrip is an AOW. Or that rifle-caliber pistols are pistols rather than SBRs but pistols with stocks are SBRs. Even the ATF can't make heads or tails of their own regulation and that puts innocent, well-intentioned gun owners attempting to comply with the law in good faith in a dangerously gray area where they cannot reasonably determine if they're complying with the law or not.

>>54601199
Most assault weapons bans specify they have to be self-loading rifles, so that would be fine.

>>54580572
>if the cops don't catch you and you're connected/wealthy enough

>>54601223
>Traditionally 'assault' weapons are semi auto-to-auto firing weapons
You meant "assault rifles" in this paragraph.

It's fucking obnoxious that "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" are two completely distinct and mutually-exclusive categories of firearms that visually appear identical to laymen, but to be frank, some politicians like it that way. So if any of you non-gunfags are confused by it don't take it too hard, it drives us crazy too.

>>54601130
"Assault Weapon" is a shitty umbrella term that basically means any weapon with "scary" cosmetic features that make it look like a military-issue weapon.

"Assault Rifle" is an intermediate-caliber rifle with selective fire capability. Not even fully-automatic fire; the M16A4 used by the U.S. Marine Corps for example can't fire in fully-automatic, only three-round bursts.

>>54601242
Yeah you're right, good catch, I even fucked up differentiating them when I was trying to explain they were different and how fucking weird it was

>>54601223

>a grenade launcher

That one feels like it didn't need inclusion under the basis of 'I'm pretty sure grenade launchers are illegal in the first place'

>>54589260
Hello fellow Cincinnati fag. I hope the ongoing gentrification treats you as well as it has been treating me. Can't wait for the gaslight to finally price out the nogs.

You visit the Rook on OTR at all? I recommend it if you like to drink while doing your /tg/ stuff.

>>54601242
>>54601255

Right. I am both more and less confused than I was before.

In Aus, our heaviest restrictions are mostly on Pistols as we are mostly concerned with concealment. You won't find too many farmers who robbed a store with a hunting shotgun.

>>54601260
Depends. Gas powered potato guns are a thing, and their legality is a toss up
>>54601242
>>54601255
>>54601233
Don't forget Battle Rifles, shitting up the waters even more and only being distinct from Assault Rifles based on their ammunition caliber

File: M16A2_M203_00[1].jpg (331KB, 2100x586px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 2100x586px

>>54601260
Common misconception (even a lot of gunfags don't know this), the grenade launcher referred to in salt weapon bans are NOT pic related. Those are considered destructive devices and are, in fact, quite legal to own, though the paperwork necessary is immense.

The grenade launchers referred to in assault weapons legislations are adapters for rifle grenades - yeah, those things that haven't been relevant since the 40s. Why ban them? Because a lot of old surplus military rifles (prominently, some variants of the SKS, for one example) have the adapters (which are literally just little tabs or slots around the muzzle of the gun, or a type of muzzle device) hard mounted and non-removable. So it's a little "gotcha" feature to fuck with gun owners looking to buy relatively cheap and reliable milsurp rifles.

>>54601223
>It should be noted this has nothing to do with automatic fire as automatic fire weapons have been outlawed for civilian use since 1934.

Unless you get a FFL and your state allows for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCppmoZiXUY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teyi0ofPOs4

File: riflegrenadeYugoAKM-Spigot[1].jpg (38KB, 718x366px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 718x366px

>>54601315
Pic related, this is the "grenade launcher" banned in assault weapons legislation.

Note that the grenades are heavily restricted items, antiques, and, for obvious reasons, aren't really used in crime - so restricting them poses no practical legal purpose whatsoever.

>>54601291
Assault rifles are what the military uses. Assault weapons are civilian lookalikes that function exactly like all other civilian firearms. That's oversimplifying it but it's the gist of it.

>>54601291
pistols are also the most commonly used ones in crimes in the USA as far as I can tell. If you remove "shitty 9mm pistol stolen from someone's uncle to sell for thirty dollars worth of drugs and traded around, from sweaty crack to linty pocket and never cleaned before eventually being held sideways and fired as fast as possible" from statistics then gun deaths drop off quickly.

File: 1490504451495.gif (178KB, 160x160px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 160x160px

Washington literally becomes Cyberpunk as all get out. We're close enough already with Amazon and Expedia building their fucking Arcologies here. They would exert control so fast that we wouldn't know what was happening until it was too late.

We would be a technological corporate powerhouse held together by a board of directors. Despite being a terrifying concept as all pretenses of a potentially not corp run government are thrown out it would be fascinating.

>>54601348
>and, for obvious reasons, aren't really used in crime
Do not underestimate Nogenuity.

>>54601358

Yeah. That's why we tend to restrict it in Aus. The ability of people to commit crimes with longarms is severely reduced. They are more overt, more bulky and just generally less preferable for crimes.

That and we have much lower mandatory minimums than american combined with a much heavier punishment for using a gun in a crime. High Mandatory Minimums feel like one of those things that can often be negatively useful as they mean there is very little difference between 'Doing the crime' and 'Doing the crime armed to the teeth' in what the punishment is if you are caught.

>>54578798
Problem is... well... Texas hates all them eastern hillbilly nancyboy almost-yankee assholes.

THE STATE OF ACTION IS STRONG
THE STATE OF COMPLACENCY IS WEAK
Fight humans

>>54600764
Yup. I'm reminded of how the IRS would love to switch to a system of "Hey, using the info we already have, here's the tax filing we generated for you. Let us know if this looks good, and if it doesn't, you can submit your own version instead."

But they keep being blocked by that in Congress.

>>54600801
At-large apportionment gets rid of districts and voting for individuals, for the legislature.

Instead, you vote for a party, and all the votes state-wide are tallied up. Each party that gets enough votes for at least one seat gets counted, then the all the seats are divided up by the parties according to their vote percentage (and after tossing out the votes for parties that didn't qualify).

Instead of sending a representative from your geographic area to the legislature, you're now sending representatives from your ideological viewpoint.

>>54600856
They already do. The Democratic and Republican parties are both coalitions themselves.

But back to the thread...

How would this Disunited States happen? The US Federal Government is fairly strong and robust.

>>54578834
yeah, I see the island-centered fleets going back to securing the ocean... for a price. Escorting fleets of cargo ships across the atlantic, with the proviso that they are leaving a % in volume or value at the big island on the way past.

North Dakota has the third largest arsenal of nukes in the world on its own, but nothing else. it'd be interesting to see what they do.

>>54573760
Group them into regional confederations

>>54601617

They have oil too.

>>54601597
>How would this Disunited States happen?
Ohio and Michigan decide to go to war again after an OSU Vs. Michigan game. Everything spirals out of control.

>>54588930
same here in NY, no one in this fucking state outside of the city actually likes it, its a gigantic leach and holds way too much power over policy.

>>54601597
Point, I remember coming to the gradual realisation that when US TV shows mention someone being lazy with taxes (usually the slacker or whatever) it was because you HAD to do your taxes yourself (or via accountant), and everyone had to do them.

Which was quite a shock, however intuitive it may seem - HMRC's deduction is just another line on my pay slip.

Similarly, I just know if I go to the US again, having only gone as a child, that the unincluded sales tax thing will trip me up so badly the first few times

>>54601656
That's what happens when more than half your population lives within 2 hours of just one city.

>>54601716
See, that's the fun bit.

The 1040A and EZ forms are what most people use to file. The 1040EZ is two pages, one of them instructions. The A is a bit more complex, but not overly so. Taxes are not as complex for wage-earners as they're made out to be.

And sales tax will forever be separated from tag prices. Too many local variations.

>>54602250
half the trouble for standard wage earners is the Doing it and the stress that comes from knowing that it is possible to do it wrong and get F'd in the A.

>>54601454
voting for/using ever-increasing mandatory minimums as a way of showing your "Tough On Crime" credentials is a meme that kicked off in the late 80's and troubles us still. Anyone voting to remove these horrible standards opens themselves up to be skewered "Representative Anon voted for murder-rapists to enter YOUR HOUSE and MURDERRAPE YOU, Don't Vote For Anon-paid for by citizensagainstmurder&jailcompany-inc"

>>54575881
Texas is also a middling Agricultural provider, at least enough to make a hole in needs. And why would the extraction and refining industries evaporate? Them tankers suddenly going to stop pulling in at Port Texas?

>>54602250
>>54602424
As long as you have a standard hourly clock-in-clock-out job, taxes are very simple

It's when you work for yourself that things go to horse shit.

>>54602503
>>54602424

I've run my own business and been a wage-earner and done both at the same time. Taxes are not as complicated as people like to think they are.

>>54602424
>And why would the extraction and refining industries evaporate?
Collapse of the global oil market. It's part of the reason why Venzuala and Russia are performing so shittily economically right now; their economies are heavily oil-based. When oil is cheap, their income gets dropped too.

Sure, there'll always be a need for refined petroleum products, but if oil were to suddenly become even cheaper and stay that way, them tankers will indeed stop pulling in at Port Texas.

>>54574059
Equally, the Midwest isn't going to do so hot if their market for food exports disappears overnight.

It's in the best interest of both parties for status quo to prevail.

>>54602424
It's also worth keeping in mind that those mandatory sentences became a thing in the 70s because people were tired of revolutionary groups robbing a bank or shooting up precincts and only getting a year or so because it was their first offense, or because of sympathetic judges/jury.

That said, like anything that seems good on paper (actually make those crimes come with a punishment worthy enough to encourage deterrent and rehabilitation), it got taken over by the prison-industrial complex. I really hate it when you can't have a rational discussion about some form of reform without people screaming "think of the children" when said group is being funded by a corp who benefits from the system.

I also think the whole system is rigged to encourage resentment in the underclass to make them easier to radicalize.

>>54589205
I don't like /pol/ but if you think gerrymandering isn't used to sway the outcome of government elections you're a dumb.

>>54604764
It was more the drug wars that brought on the mandatory minimums, it's what also killed parole on a federal level. Things like three strikes laws and harsher penalties for using a firearm mostly came about in the 90s.

You're seeing a lot of effort for prison reform these days as the large prison populations are becoming a massive money drain for states and recidivism rates are still high. You're also seeing pushback against the prison industrial complex from governments, even typically pro-business, heavy law & order types.

A lot of you all are thinking of this wrong. The states are already fairly independent. The big issue would be a collapse of the federal government leading to federal subsidies no longer going to some states and disproportionate taxes no longer going to the Feds for others.

Probably the biggest problem is the collapse of the dollar with no central backing authority, followed by the military nightmare of who gets what military equipment and soldiers as they seek to return home, and the fact that a bunch of states on the local level now control nukes.

Otherwise, there are a whole lot of incentives for continued cooperation between states, and the random dissolution of the federal government would mean that another or several would rise to replace it. Far more interesting than what the states do is whether anyone makes a grab at the overseas military bases like Guam, Guantanamo, Okinawa, and so on.

>>54598859
>>Minnesota slowly becomes part of Canada.
>>No one can really tell the difference
There's absolutely no way that Greater Minnesota (that's what people north of the Twin Cities call themselves following a Republican rebranding) would allow themselves to become a part of Canada. The state appears blue on political maps because the Cities make up the bulk of the state's population, but people here in G.Minn. already consider the Cities to be a festering Gomorrah of liberals and tax hikes. If the opportunity arose, the north area would divorce itself from the metro area and try their best to stay isolated as the One True America.

I feel like the Amish would end up running things after a generation because they would be able to keep their infrastructure together in the long run when all the "rugged outdoorsmen" found that they weren't getting any gasoline shipped up here. Either way, after a year or two of no road maintenance, the roads are going to be largely impassable.

>>54604921
Money issues makes me interested in these situations sometimes.

Will I switch to TexBucks? What is the exchange, this minute, on TexBucks and ArkanDollars? (places I need to go to in both) and will places near the border accept both? Can I fox the system by buying a couple extra gallons of gas with my Texitizen ID card and sneaking it over the border to trade it off at their higher state rate or will the Council Security appropriate it when I get stopped crossing Native land?

>>54601617
>North Dakota has the third largest arsenal of nukes in the world on its own, but nothing else.
Did you miss how North Dakota had the fastest rate of population growth over the last decade because of the tremendous oil boom that's just now winding down

>>54605092
Probably like selling cigarettes across the border, only with stiffer penalties.

>>54600370
Yea, that's true. PA still has a lot of iron and coal, all three states have a lot of farmland, and coupled with ocean access for fishing and trade up and down the coats, it would be pretty solid area to be in.

>>54601597
> How would this Disunited States happen? The US Federal Government is fairly strong and robust.

The federal government finally decides to go through with exterminating California like most of the states have been wanting. Blue states rebel, a civil war ensues.

File: 1494538725216.jpg (679KB, 1554x965px) Image search: [Google]

679KB, 1554x965px

>>54573760
Not necessarily answering the question but I figure this is the best place for this.

I always thought that in the future, the Union would find itself in a cycle very similar to that of dynastic China. It will fall at some point like all countries do and exist in a period of disunion or chaos ranging from a couple decades to a couple centuries. Yet it will always at one point be reunited under one banner due to either conquest or unifying. It may be missing a few states or gain a few territories down the line, and the system of governance may change in each iteration. Although in my mind it would always have an undercurrent of republicanism, even when you get a monarchical dynasty reigning over the Union, governors and local officials will still remain elected representatives. People will often romanticize the idea of a Grand Union but will be apprehensive to throw their lot in for it until the new government proves itself a worth successor. This is why when I do settings in the future featuring the U.S. I will refer to it as "The Fourth Union" or some similar title.

Is this a fair assessment of what would happen down the line?

>>54601597
>How would this Disunited States happen? The US Federal Government is fairly strong and robust.

It would have to be a result of cultural drift and the federal governments inability to provide for the needs of the states. A natural disaster which kills thousands but can't be dealt with in proper time due to the government having their thumbs up their ass would go a long way in dissolving confidence. As far as culture goes, we need to be concerned about tribalism. Considering the state of politics today, it would not be out of the realm of possibility for officials on one side of the isle to go too far in trying to fuck another state over for political differences. Having a senator shut down federal funding because of "lol liberal tears" would seriously damage legitimacy. And liberals aren't all peachy either.

>>54604901

Of course gerrymandering happens, but it only affects House elections. Every resident in the state votes in elections for senators, the governor and the president. It isn't possible to gerrymander those last three categories of elections.

>>54601646
this has basically happened in south america..i forget the details though.

>>54601396
>Shadowrun minus magic and the natives
Nice

>>54605354
any number of things....yellow stone volcano erupts....dollar becomes worthless or near worthless..EMP....series of crippling natural disasters in quick succession...for example what if Katrina and The Big One happened within a week of each other? giant meteor crushes D.C during a state of the union...west coast succession..nigh endless scenarios for this

>>54608160
>meteor crashes into DC
Denver or new york is the new capital
>west coast succession
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
no
>tons of natural disators in a one go
Could actually do something

>>54605078
What if the rest of the state just kicks out the Cities? We could make Duluth or Rochester the new capital.

Annex Iowa while we're at it, because why not.

>>54608697
>>meteor crashes into DC
>Denver or new york is the new capital
It would actually more likely be St. Louis as there are more Federal records and agencies located there than anywhere else outside DC. Also its kinda the lynchpin of the nation logistically speaking, if it goes down, shipping between east and west coast suddenly becomes around five or six times more expensive.

In terms of "how do you get it" what you could do is have something like the Loss/Recession division in Red Markets?

Basically, zombies happen and the federal government does what it can to save people until someone in a boardroom somewhere does some real hard math and works out that we just dont have enough bullets, enough trained shooters, to wipe out zombies across the nation. You need to find a border line, blow all the bridges and make your side of the line clear, wait for the apocalypse on the other side of the line to burn itself out.

In RM, that line is the Misissippi River, which zombies mostly sink in and you only have to blow the bridges and secure the upper 200 miles where the river is fairly narrow.

So, yeah, a genre appropriate disaster might be a good way to trigger the division.

>>54608697
>>54596087
Columbus is the backup capital
New York isnt built for it
Denver isnt built for it
Buckeye state is best state faggot

>>54610315
>Meteors fall on Washington DC, St. Louis, Los Angeles and space radiation causes the dead to walk the earth
>at the same time Yellowstone goes off and the storm of the millennia hits the east coast
>leadership is decapitated and the line of succession has to go down fifty steps to select some literal nobody that is either way too far left or way too far right for the nation to accept
>opposition to federal authority everywhere
>dissolution of the state and secessions

>>54611541

Interesting how many apocalypse scenarios boil down to "what if the Midwest was all that there was in America"

>>54611775
It's mostly that there's nothing really worth destroying there. I suppose you could destroy the crops.

>>54575881
We've also got cattle and produce.

>>54612700
Not going to dispute the extent of Texan farming and ranching.

However, the big bucks have been in the oil industry. Texas also takes in a lot of Fed dollars as well as money from companies taking in Fed dollars.

Oil extraction and refining is a major part of the Texan economy. Should that go away, it'll cause huge budget shortfalls and contract the economy. Maybe manufacturing and tech sectors will be able to pick up the slack, but a lot of those are because of the Fed, and the Fed's gone, man.

>>54614308
With the Fed gone most of their high tech sector goes too, as does a good portion of their manufacturing. The lost of tourism alone would removed roughly 8% of their economy.

>>54615199
Yup.

And if oil keeps dropping in price, there goes the oil industry in Texas.

They can probably get along well enough and better than some other States. Possibly even well enough in the immediate aftermath of the Dissolution to shore up their economic weaknesses.

>>54600792
Is it weird that I legitimately see the word "commiefornia" every time I see california in print?

>>54573823

I'm from Florida, nobody would want to invade us anyway. That's a form of strength.

>>54611541
if i remember right the very bottom of the line of succession is basically a council of military leaders run the government until everyone can get there shit together to start re-electing people.

>>54615644
Not really. You're a notorious faggot.

>>54615644
No.

>>54615557
They are also big enough to bully their neighbors into giving them favorable deals or joining some sort of Texan-led regional confederation.

A lot also depends on how well they can keep order in the big cities when the disappearance of Federal money wipes out most of the welfare and similar benefits that many people rely on to survive.

>>54616677
>hey are also big enough to bully their neighbors
That's what I was thinking for the "immediate aftermath" bit.

>>54604921
>Okinawa
>intense standoff between the Okinawa base and the JSDF reaches the point where only after an agreement is reached do the soldiers remember that the federal government they work for no longer exists

>US Pacific holdings consolidate into a small empire based out of Hawaii

>>54574168
>>54575302
>>54588412
>>54615557
>>54617054
I think what happens in the first 5 years after dissolution would be the most crucial and would set the tone for future relations in the former union.

I can see Dixie becoming embroiled in a series of wars as people attempt to consolidate it into a unified nation, but everyone will want to do it on their own terms in a way which is favorable to their state. If they can come to a compromise in the first 5 years then you could have a decently strong nation. If not then you will have a fractured tribalistic shithole.

The area around the Colorado river is going to get ugly, very ugly. You will have millions of people who need water but no clear division of jurisdictions over the dams and pumps. Who gets Hoover Dam? Is it Nevada's or Arizona's? How will they allocate? I don't know if they can grow enough food to feed that many people and preform all the other functions of society with the water that's there. You could wind up again with consolidated authority over the watershed, or you could have millions of very desperate people and that's when atrocities start to happen.

Finally you have to look at the possibility of larger states pushing around smaller states. If this happens in the first five years at all then you will have set a dark precedent for politics in the coming centuries.

>>54617336
Also, let's look at outlying areas. How many Army bases get absorbed by other countries, and how many fight back? What about the Navy?

Alaska and the Aleutians? Hawaii, Guam, Samoa?

Do Mexico and Canada make land grabs, or try to prop up what they see as the most legitimate successors? Do Canada's actions pull the whole Commonwealth into the affair, or are they on their own?

File: jeffersonjpg-6fb91ad515c3a182.jpg (103KB, 615x1024px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 615x1024px

>all these faggots saying Nevada would buddy up with California immediately

>Nevada not freeing based Jefferson from both California and Oregons joint tyranny and immediately joining up with jefferson, utah and Idaho to create a mountain-ridge conservative bloc to keep commies contained in their deserts and rainy pine tree forests.

Read East of West

>>54617369
It really isn't kind to use other people as tools against people you don't like.
also read
>>54590508
>>54598355

>>54617369
>tard thinks Nevada has the manpower to force anything on California
Lol.

>>54617336
Who gets Hoover Dam? Probably California. They've got the money and resources to keep it going.

You're right about them not growing enough food; it's probably why most of Nevada and Arizona will ended up effectively abandoned, and the rest likely joined to whatever arises in the West Coast.

>>54617368
The US Pacific Islands will likely try to band together and end up requesting some sort of de-facto protectorate status with Australia. US Federal bases in other countries probably get absorbed back to those countries, turned over by their commanders in exchange for either getting back to the US or being accepted as refugees.

I don't see Mexico or Canada trying to make any landgrabs. Mexico is more likely, but aside portions of the Southwest that the two big powers they'd border wouldn't want, they'd be smack dab against California and Texas.

Canada probably would prop up the most legitimate-looking successor state, or perhaps multiple if they feel that restoring the union would be impractical.

>>54617517
Honestly the jefferson thing is just a popular joke here in Nevada, the fact that most of the native Nevadans hate California (legislation) in general isn't.

Fuck me, if the union desolves the first thing I imagine us doing is grabbing up a few mountain towns bordering us to give us a nice buffer. Places like Susanville and south lake Tahoe are Nevadan in every other way already and rely on Reno for it's airport andlivestock events and Carson city for its expansive shipping and distribution enters or else their mostly agarian and cottage-industry based local economies would collapse unless they found a way to get over the Sierra-Nevadas during the winter and get to other large cities like Redding, Roseville and Sacramento.

>>54617577
>tard thinks Afghanistan goat-fuckers have the manpower and pure refined bull-headedness to keep both the Soviet Russian and United States in an embarrassing and costly war of attrition until they get the hint and leave.

>>54617636
But that exact thing did happen- oh.

>>54617608
You could probably join California. Now I know you said you aren't particularly fond of its governance but we have to keep in mind that federal government California would be a lot different than state California. LA/Bay Area politics would be much more contained to those areas and the eastern slopes of the sierras (Reno, Carson etc.) would be able to maintain local political autonomy while having the tax base, economic connections and military protection that California would provide.

If it were unitarian and not federal then I would no be down for California. I technically live in Greater L:.A. and even I wont think that's healthy.

>>54617636
>>54617740
>Comparing a country which waged guerrilla war to keep occupiers out of its own territory, to a small country trying to project power on its next door neighbor and peel territory off.

File: 9b14586a70dc0f1bc2b3b9be3c7d924a.jpg (26KB, 500x354px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x354px

>>54617781
The fact that you live over 200 miles away from the area I have spent my entire life in and immediately think that you could just push our shit in no problem and expect us to be grateful for the opportunity to be taken over says a lot about you.

>>54617867
>immediately think that you could just push our shit in no problem

At what point could you have possibly gotten the impression that I wanted a hostile takeover?

File: a333dfa4b15fcf4a0279d1c776533777.png (67KB, 1982x1133px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1982x1133px

>>54617947
Seems to be the general stance this thread has taken, just a bit of projection really.

Still, you cross those mountains you are going to find that there is a man with a gun behind every fucking rock in this desert. Calishits stay out of the Silver State.

>>54617781
>>Comparing a country which waged guerrilla war to keep occupiers out of its own territory, to a small country trying to project power on its next door neighbor and peel territory off.

That's why I just walked away. Nevermind that a majority of people in the theorhetical State of Jeffersion wouldn't want to leave California.

It's more likely the big desert cities would join in with California to make certain the water and food kept flowing. Las Vegas and Reno might survive as tourist destinations, but then again, might not.

File: Long_Valley_Caldera.jpg (5MB, 3711x2474px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 3711x2474px

>>54618036
Nevada can have any of its old territory it wants. I would much rather an insular California that minds its own business. The globalism here is getting really old, and I want us to retire a bit. Maybe we can just be friends.

>Still, you cross those mountains you are going to find that there is a man with a gun behind every fucking rock in this desert. Calishits stay out of the Silver State.

I feel you man. I myself would actually be a concerned for Cali about the Cascadia which would form in short order. Every map they those Cascadians put out has them stealing some of California's clay and they seem very entitled to that land when talking about it so I would feel uneasy having them around. I have actually seen maps of them reaching all the way down to San Francisco, but they are going to have to pay in blood for every inch of that land.

>>54618056
>It's more likely the big desert cities would join in with California to make certain the water and food kept flowing. Las Vegas and Reno might survive as tourist destinations, but then again, might not.

I wouldn't want to go too far east, and definitely not past the Colorado. We need to keep things as a small nation state. The only reason I would extend an offer to the Nevadans is because they and our eastern slopes/Owens Valley and Mojave have a good deal in common culturally. Even that's borders on becoming expansionist. We just need to funnel as much money/manpower into the region as is necessary to maintain stability, keep the pumps on and maintain new water treaties. Other than that, they are on their own.

>>54618497
>We need to keep things as a small nation state.

Honestly, I don't see that happening. I do see California forming some sort of union with Washington and Oregon, as well as bordering territories, possibly a bit more than that.

File: 1443065495889.png (203KB, 1802x905px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1802x905px

>>54573760
>>54573825
>>54574182
>>54574671
>>54590200
>>54590508

the government has had red team planners already deal with an american civil war scenario.
coastal cities lose.... badly...

southern california in particular would be apocalyptically fucked. on day one they would have their water supplies cut, and most of their electricity cut. both of those come from arizona. what are their minority populations going to do when there is no water and no electricity? riot and destroy half their city.

>>54618672
>Right-wing Fanwank

Okay

File: 1357550211399.jpg (2MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1920px

>>54618897
>fanwank
actually its a professional redteamer employed by the US government for the purpose of planning a civil war scenario. ill tell you what is fanwank tho: you thinking that your economy of movies, lattes, iphones, and apps is one that translates into battlefield strength.

>>54619176
>fell for it

Wow

File: Telling Lies.jpg (59KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 600x450px

>>54619176
>actually its a professional redteamer employed by the US government for the purpose of planning a civil war scenario

File: bait110.png (7KB, 201x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 201x200px

>>54618672

File: 1500476498083.png (38KB, 499x338px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 499x338px

>>54618672
>>54619176
>>54619239
>>54619251
Even assuming it's legit. Are we now made privy to the knowledge that right wing employees so utterly lack the professionalism necessary to high level positions, that they would reveal highly classified government plans in order to masturbate about killing leftists on the internet?

Maybe we should split. I certainly wouldn't want anything to do with that hot mess.

File: 1500512329915.jpg (55KB, 400x303px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 400x303px

>All these people thinking California is going to remain a monolith
>Implying that anything short of Texas peacefully or forcefully annexing the western side of the nation would happen
>Everyone forgetting that the world would likely end in the absence of America on the world stage anyway, thus rendering this entire setting moot

>>54575575

If it seceded, California would be one of the most powerful and successful countries in the world, exceeding even Venezuela.

>>54604901
>>54607285

You can gerrymander Presidential elections, too, but only in states where electoral votes are apportioned per house district. I think that's just Nebraska and Maine.

But anon's right that you can't gerrymander a governor or senate election, or in most states a presidential election. In statewide elections, it's a straight-up popular vote.

In Presidential elections, the borders of the states aren't adjusted so a politician can't manipulate them to influence electoral outcomes. The maps DO matter (five times in US history the winner didn't win the popular vote) but they can't be manipulated via gerrymandering.

File: Pennsreich.png (35KB, 854x634px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 854x634px

Who /keystone/ here?

File: 1427864951644.png (188KB, 330x495px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 330x495px

>>54625207
>That moment when you remember that the Confederates won in Steven Universe's timeline

>>54619176
No, dumbass. That post was made using poorly-understood information TAKEN from a professional opfor military advisor and then tarred with a "hurr durr these red states that are extremely dependent on the federal government to maintain economic homeostasis are SUPER COOL AND INDEPENDENT" brush.

I really wish I had saved the original dump, because it mostly only talked about how the US's electrical and telecommunications infrastructure is a ramshackle frankenstein's monster of free market dipshittery that any rebel with some clamps, a signal repeater, and a fertilizer bomb could deal noticeable damage to.

>>54623947
>But anon's right that you can't gerrymander a governor or senate election, or in most states a presidential election. In statewide elections, it's a straight-up popular vote.
For those, you have to go with outright voter suppression, perhaps through onerous voter ID requirements (as a proxy for an out-and-out property requirement). Or you can try media control, but that's rather less certain.

>>54625630

That is the reason Russian 'diplomatic personnel' have been found several times in the middle of nowhere that just happen to be near major telecom points.