What do you think would happen if the US broke apart like the Soviet Union?

Question

What do you think would happen if the US broke up like the Soviet Union and each state became its own country. We were talking about this in class and im just curious about others thoughts

PS dont say anything about it never happening i said
"IF IT HAPPENED"

What do you if it did happen and went through

Hawaii was a country

Answer 1

Well USSR was comprised of countries that were taken. Since the split, those countries are no longer part of the Soviet Union because they returned to their original country's status.

The U.S. is comprised of states, not countries.

Answer 2

First of all it can't happen. There are laws against it brought on by something called the Confederate States of America which consisted of 13 states that ceceded from the union and then lived to regret it. They are, of course back in the fold now and contributing to the betterment of the whole country.

Imagine if Katrina had hit and some of those states were indipendent countries. What would happen to the Republic of Mississippi? Talk about 3rd world countries. They aren't that well off now having the federal support. Without it they would be like Bangledesh.

Answer 3

The US has always been one country, with largely the same borders. States cannot break away. We have a Constitution. We also fought the Civil War over that issue.
The USSR was a bunch of unrelated countries held together by the military might of the Soviet government. The USSR fell apart for many reasons. The main one: no individual freedoms to defend and work for.

Answer 4

That won't happen because the Central Government in Washington controls the amount of money doled out to the individual states. While each state has a certain amount of "leeway" in how the people want to observe their peculiar and individual freedom in that state or area, the Federal Government still controls how much of the individuals Federal tax money goes back to that state depending on whether or not that state follows "Federal Guidelines". If the "feedback of money" were to be cut off from any state, that state would, in effect, be bankrupt. On the other hand, if a state is in need of help, the Federal Government is supposed to step in and fill the gap. Just like we didn't do after Katrina. Whoops, seems to be a flaw in the system!

Answer 5

New England, jersey, new york industrial northeast would band together to form one country. Confederate states would form another country with some midwestern red states. California would do well by itself, obviously, but might agree to band with certain western states. Interesting question is what would Texas do? I think Texas would see the writing on the wall, that joining the red states would be a huge burden to it's economy. The red states do in fact recieve more federal funding than they pay into the system. I think Texas would be smart enough to join with California for Pacific Ocean access as well as joining the richest state. Therefore I'd expect Texas, Arizona, colorado, new mexico, nevada, california, oregon, washington, hawaii and alaska to form one country. the 'red confederacy' would be impoverished. The northern country would also do well. We could even have a horseshoe shaped country linking west, north and east. Without the burdenous red states, this new united states would dominate.

Answer 6

Most of the countries that broke away from Russia were not Russian to begin with so when they broke up the USSR those countries that broke off were ethnically & culturally different from Russia so it was fairly easy for them to start up new countries. The US isn't like that. Which would mean many more problems.

Answer 7

least complicated thank you to describe it extremely is that President Reagan desperate to work out who ought to spend money the main and the Soviet Union ought to no longer journey the protection stress expenses of the US and shop the civilians chuffed so as that they in fact bankrupted themselves. those questioning it replaced right into a foul ingredient i might factor out that retaining the status quo because it replaced into then might propose you have in no way had the surpluses of the 1990's because of the fact the protection stress could be plenty larger and extra high priced then it replaced into then or is now and faster or later one area or the different might have made a mistake or misjudged issues and we ought to have surely long gone to conflict.

Answer 8

There would be a lot less political bickering.

If you believe current generalizations, each region of the country tends to have an overall political leaning -- New England, West Coast, Mid-Atlantic, Deep South, Mid-West, etc.

Each would then be free to establish its own regional (federal) laws, which could likely better represent the majority in that region.

It would also allow for a lot more differences in laws, which allows people to move to areas where they like the laws, without having to give up as much of their cultural familiarity.

Answer 9

Look what has happened in Bosnia, Russia, Lebanon... This country would experience a Civil War II.

Answer 10

I think California would, in time, become a superpower, the Deep South would become ultra-conservative and very wealthy. New England would also be wealthy, but generous. Alaska would become part of Canada or Russia, and whatever country that took it would become very wealthy, but destroy its pristine beauty. And the Mid West would split into to pieces, both weak, one conservative and one liberal. One mid west country would keep something along the lines of USA as its name because they are proud of the number of US presidents they have produced. This is all hypothetical, but you only need look at how we already divide them into regions, each region functioning differently from the others.