Very. The last time, warfare was far less asymmetric than it is now. Millions of people would need to be well past the point of “dying for their values and ideals” before that would get traction politically.
What’s the process like?
There literally isn’t one, or at least, not an official one; we’re not the EU. One spot on a map says “no” and the bigger spot on the map around it says “LOL… oh wait you’re serious?” Then they fight.
Also, the optics are very different for a state like California or any other economic powerhouse in the union. These places make up a huge chunk of the country’s GDP, so losing them would cost a massive chunk of the tax base. Plus, that would reduce the overall coastline of the remainder. Combined these outcomes are strategically “very bad”, further motivating the use of force to counter it.
Secession is a very complex subject. Besides the issues you mentioned there are tons of consequences of using force. The Civil War was over 160 years ago and we still have lingering grudges. How would our wealthy feel about the impacts of another one on their investments? Or on US bond values and the value of the dollar itself? I feel like analyzing the possibilities is far beyond my Econ 101 knowledge, but it seems like resolving a secession issue with negotiation would be vastly preferable to all parties involved than any armed conflict. I think it would come down to how the most influential people thought any outcome would affect them.
Very. The last time, warfare was far less asymmetric than it is now. Millions of people would need to be well past the point of “dying for their values and ideals” before that would get traction politically.
There literally isn’t one, or at least, not an official one; we’re not the EU. One spot on a map says “no” and the bigger spot on the map around it says “LOL… oh wait you’re serious?” Then they fight.
Also, the optics are very different for a state like California or any other economic powerhouse in the union. These places make up a huge chunk of the country’s GDP, so losing them would cost a massive chunk of the tax base. Plus, that would reduce the overall coastline of the remainder. Combined these outcomes are strategically “very bad”, further motivating the use of force to counter it.
Secession is a very complex subject. Besides the issues you mentioned there are tons of consequences of using force. The Civil War was over 160 years ago and we still have lingering grudges. How would our wealthy feel about the impacts of another one on their investments? Or on US bond values and the value of the dollar itself? I feel like analyzing the possibilities is far beyond my Econ 101 knowledge, but it seems like resolving a secession issue with negotiation would be vastly preferable to all parties involved than any armed conflict. I think it would come down to how the most influential people thought any outcome would affect them.