Is this all the beginning of the end of the United States?

More to the point:

1. Do you applaud it? If so, why?

2. What comes next?

3. Do we all speak Mandarin in two generations?

4. What does a potential Balkanization map look like to you? We already have CHAZ/CHOP, after all.

Serious questions, folks. I'm interested to hear the honest opinions. If all you want to do is call it dumb, namecall, or troll, please do it somewhere else. Notice that the above questions have no real political slant to them- they're just questions about the future, with the exception of number one. This is not a baited trap, so don't be afraid to answer honestly.

Answering from an American perspective:

1. If this is the beginning of the end for the United States, I wouldn't applaud it, no. I wouldn't call myself a flag-waving patriot, but I have no desire to see my country split apart. I think the American experiment has some life left in it, and that we still have a lot to give to the world. Whether or not the US will have an overall positive or negative impact on the world remains to be seen.

2. If it does end, I think Balkanization is likely. But I think that once the animosity (and there will be animosity) dies down, the majority of the sections will enter into a mutual defense and free trade pact. Like NATO and the EU mashed together--basically a less united United States.

3. Do we all speak Mandarin in two generations? No. In ten generations? Probably not. I think there will definitely be a very pronounced Mandarin influence on English as time goes on, however.

4. A Balkanization map? Definitely an independent California, possibly an independent Cascadia, and I think the South will rise again eventually. I think the East Coast north of DC would stay together (with some separatist states in Maine, New Hampshire, and upstate New York). Maybe an independent Texas that absorbs the Southwest? I don't know. Not sure how the midwest would pan out, or the rest of the flyover states. Don't know enough about them.

Wasn't asking this question as one of linguistic drift, but more in political terms, as in: if the United States ceases to be in a meaningful form on the world stage, what is there to stop the Chinese from achieving hegemony over whatever portion of the globe they wish?

Not very different than how I would perceive it, interestingly enough. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

No, it isn't.

And on the off-chance that the former Confederate states decided to secede or something ... well, the rest of us would be stronger without them anyway, so our ability to rein in China would be unchanged.

Fair enough. What about questions 2 and 4 in the OP?

Oh, I see. Honestly, the end of the United States would bring on destabilization the likes of which the world has literally never seen. I don't think anyone will come out unscathed. I don't know if the current Chinese leadership would even survive. Absent a complete collapse and prolonged depression, I think China has the military might to at least intimidate most of the globe into compliance. Russia wouldn't take it lying down though. Europe might not, either.

Probably not, however it's the type of situation that does often precede breakups so it's more likely than a decade ago.

No, large countries splitting is generally bad for the citizens of those countries and international stability. That isn't to say that states seceding couldn't be a good thing, for example under a scenario like Trump deploying military against protesters then winning the election with a large popular vote loss. That looks less likely than even a couple of weeks ago though.

Hard to say without knowing the conditions that cause a breakup. I'd say that if the US split it would likely be the West coast states splitting, then a rift between the North-Eastern states and the rest.

Nope, in the same way that not everyone speaks English now. There will be more Chinese influence on the international stage though.

See above. Those areas aren't long term solutions.

China has no power projection capability. Neither a Blue Water Navy (although working on it) nor an Expeditionary Army (needs Heavy Lift and bases).

I think the US as we know it is changing. It has before and still stuck together, not sure this is any different.

The issue of the moment isn’t the actual issue. The actual issue is the Senate. It is already out of whack, giving more power to rural areas which as the rest of the country moves forward has decided to just burn it all down instead of moving with it.

This trend will only accelerate. By 2040 70% of the US population will live in 15 states. Meaning 70% of the population will have 30 Senators and 30% of the population 70 Senators. The Maker States won’t take being used and abused by the Taker States for very long. They are already getting tired of it.

So something will have to change with the Senate.
Not sure what, or how, but something will have to change or there will be a break up (Maker States seceding) at least temporarily. It might not last long before their is a reunion (on Maker State terms).

Hmm. Well, without the United States around, it may be easier for China to build up its power projection capability. I wonder if they'd even want to try to achieve what the US has. Is China even really interested in hegemony outside of its sphere of influence?

Something tells me liberals and conservatives would disagree on which states are the makers, and which states are the takers.

Sure, they can disagree all they want, but the facts are facts. With the exception of Texas (petro dollars and urban areas) and N. Dakota (petro dollars) Red America takes in more money from the Feds than they pay in.

And Texas might not be Red by the time this becomes a serious enough issue.

To counterpoint myself somewhat, while demographics are destiny, geography is DNA.

Assuming we can solve the Senate issue America is poised to maintain our position in the world for a long time to come.

We have the world’s largest collection of arable land bisected by the world’s largest navigable river system. With the exception of Rare Earth Minerals we have an abundance of every resource a modern economy needs (including oil, which we need to transition away from, but are the largest producer in the world). We have the world’s great two trading oceans on either side (connected by the world’s largest freight rail network) with frozen tundra and deserts to our north and south (good luck invading us).

Then there is our population. We have a large enough population to sustain and grow our economy. And for all our faults we are the best country in the world at taking in and integrating migrants, so workers won’t be an issue. Present issues aside we are relatively stable. We are well educated.

In other words our physical and human capital stocks are the greatest in the world.

Anc, the 'problems' you describe with the Senate are the entire reason the Senate was written into the Constitution. It's so the populations of NYC, Philly, and LA don't get to unilaterally decide policy for the Dakotas, Kansas, Iowa, Wyoming, and a slew of other 'flyover' states that the coastal cities outnumber in terms of population. (Read- votes) The Founders were were preternaturally aware of the dangers of 'direct democracy', which translates to 'the tyranny of the majority.' This is why we have a Constitutional Republic, the electoral college, and a two-chamber legislature. The 'majority' does get its say- in the House of Representatives.

I also find it a bit disingenuous that you seem to view the Senate as the sole problem, when the Senate is held by Republicans. I think it's closer to the truth that you see a Republican Senate as a roadblock to the Pelosi /AOC agenda, and THAT's why it's a problem for you.

Remember also that when the Constitution was ratified, senators were not voted on directly by the people- they were assigned by their state governments to represent the interests of their individual states. I'm still not sure we were smart to change that.

If you really believe that the core problem is about 'makers' and 'takers', then the real solution is clear and logical- dissolution of the Union. 'Makers' can go be their own profitable nations without others dragging them down, and 'takers' can just muddle along. Living in the 'taker' state of Idaho, I am unafraid for how that would turn out for me.

Any comments on the questions in the OP, answered straight up? (Other than #3, which you addressed)

Passably true on all counts.

Passably true.

Present issues are at the heart of the matter. We are as unstable now as we've been since 1861. We are also not well educated. The generation in school now and the one preceding it is what I would call well indoctrinated, and not in a good way. They've been taught, in essence, that their country is morally bankrupt, has no redeeming qualities, and is therefore unworthy of survival. We're reaping the whirlwind right now. Furthermore, the very few of these kids that have been taught to think at all, have been taught what to think versus how to think, as in critical thinking. And none of them can make change for a dollar without computer assistance.

Even if this were true (it's an arguable point), it doesn't matter in the face of bad ideology. Russia had great human stocks and even better resources than we do, and look at the ruin it was ultimately driven to by Marxism. Take the strongest nation on Earth, and bad ideology can lay it low as thoroughly as war or natural disaster. And make no mistake, we are currently in a struggle with DISASTROUS ideology, although I know you and I will split 180 out on whose ideology is actually harmful. Agree to disagree on that one.

Better quality attempt to troll by you so I will answer

I don't think it is the end. The world has too much invested in the present economic boundaries to start playing with rogue US states as countries. I think there would be further deterioration needed to do something, and that only leaves a permissive exit from the union. That simply is not going to happen. There is too much international commercialism and power bound up with the US to have such a thing happen. That is not to mention what would happen to a divided US military.

As for there being some sort of internal uprising, again I have to say no. The government is fractured enough with power that to have some revolutionary force be able to take it down would involve massive opposition from a federal stance. The only people the rogue group could go to would be a destabilizing Russia or China and I am pretty sure the people shouting for revolution do not want to side with those regimes on either side of the spectrum. On the left they are oppressive fascists states that do not seem to be allies of liberal and progressive thought. On the right they are the great communist enemy and I think actually partnering with them would be the WTF moment a lot of the libertarians would chip off from.

So basically we are going to go on.

Tomorrow? No really we go on to tomorrow. Yes i think a few people on your side are going to pop off when Donnie little hands gets defeated in november, but they will be arrested and put in jail. I do not think trump has enough good will with the police to truly capture their allegiance to form a coup force. I know he does not have the military backing to do so. He can make his stand, but at the end of the day we vote him out and he has to go no matter what sort of tantrum he throws. It is clear even his supreme court picks are not going to keep him in office if he is not elected.

I think we really should be learning to speak foreign languages. The chinese are learning to speak english so they can do better business and be more valuable, so we should step up our multilingual game because the world is not converting to american english speaking any time soon.

This final question is where you have delved into complete partisan trolling and have become tedious and boring so I won't be bothered much with it except to say I would totally be for establishing a trump country for you to go to in the dakotas. We can totally give you them and maybe wisconsin for some shipping routes that would be heavily monitored for nuclear materials and excessive waste dumping.

Better quality attempt to troll by you so I will answer

I don't think it is the end. The world has too much invested in the present economic boundaries to start playing with rogue US states as countries. I think there would be further deterioration needed to do something, and that only leaves a permissive exit from the union. That simply is not going to happen. There is too much international commercialism and power bound up with the US to have such a thing happen. That is not to mention what would happen to a divided US military.

As for there being some sort of internal uprising, again I have to say no. The government is fractured enough with power that to have some revolutionary force be able to take it down would involve massive opposition from a federal stance. The only people the rogue group could go to would be a destabilizing Russia or China and I am pretty sure the people shouting for revolution do not want to side with those regimes on either side of the spectrum. On the left they are oppressive fascists states that do not seem to be allies of liberal and progressive thought. On the right they are the great communist enemy and I think actually partnering with them would be the WTF moment a lot of the libertarians would chip off from.

So basically we are going to go on.

Tomorrow? No really we go on to tomorrow. Yes i think a few people on your side are going to pop off when Donnie little hands gets defeated in november, but they will be arrested and put in jail. I do not think trump has enough good will with the police to truly capture their allegiance to form a coup force. I know he does not have the military backing to do so. He can make his stand, but at the end of the day we vote him out and he has to go no matter what sort of tantrum he throws. It is clear even his supreme court picks are not going to keep him in office if he is not elected.

I think we really should be learning to speak foreign languages. The chinese are learning to speak english so they can do better business and be more valuable, so we should step up our multilingual game because the world is not converting to american english speaking any time soon.

This final question is where you have delved into complete partisan trolling and have become tedious and boring so I won't be bothered much with it except to say I would totally be for establishing a trump country for you to go to in the dakotas. We can totally give you them and maybe wisconsin for some shipping routes that would be heavily monitored for nuclear materials and excessive waste dumping.

Conservative vs. liberal is not the same as 'half slave, half free.' There is no compromise, moral and otherwise, between slavery and freedom. But liberal and conservatives can meet in the middle on many things. No ideal for either side, but enough to keep the country moving forward. But when the party in power--either one--simply shuts out the opposition from the government altogether, the country suffers. If there's a second Civil War, no one will win (besides Russia, maybe). There's no need for some kind of apocalyptic struggle between these two competing American ideologies. There's room for compromise if people are willing to give a little.

Well, the problem is that we've gotten to the point where, in D&D terms, it's a Lawful Good vs Chaotic Evil scenario in most people's minds. (Each side seeing itself as the 'good guy', of course). When people are THAT polarized, diametrically opposed, as it were, compromise becomes extremely difficult. Free Market Capitalism and Communism are those polar opposites. The socialists will argue until they're blue in the face that socialism does not equal communism, and maybe in a textbook or something that's true. In the real world, in the end, there is never any difference when you get to the endgame. Hence the ideological divide.

I'm posting too much in this thread. I'd like to hear some other people voice their opinions.

Future isn't written yet. Is this the end of the United States? I don't want it to be. So what do we need?

1. Understand why the end of the US is nothing to applaud. Land of promise and progress; primary experiment of enlightenment, grappling with enlightenment's sins -- racism, colonialism, patriarchy and capitalism -- abroad and at home.

Most of the political virtues I believe in are, in my eyes, fundamentally American. 'Stability', however, has never been among them. "We progress, as we must" is the one saving grace in a deeply racist, colonialist, misogynist, deeply American and frankly wonderful writer such as Heinlein. It's the main promise of Golden Age Science Fiction, and of the series that brought this board together originally. Not stability, but change for the better.

That means battles. Right now, the battle is fought at home: It's the White House, not Berlin, that has openly embraced national socialism. @garamet said somewhere recently that Trump didn't start a war . I'm not sure that's true. There's fighting in your streets. The question is whether all the guys with the guns will turn out for America, for progress and change, or against it.

2. Understand what needs to come next, what change we need. It's pretty clear what is needed; and it's not impossible. The way out of racism, out of patriarchy, and definitely out of colonialism and capitalism is in fact the trajectory the US has been on since its founding. But when Americans like @Marso prefer to start a new thread to ponder the end of the United States rather than embrace the reform that's needed to save it (and spelled out in five other threads), that begs the question whether there is enough changing power left in the US to become the next thing, as it has done for several generations before, rather than be replaced by what's next.

3. All my brighter students know either Japanese, Korean, or Chinese. I don't. It's turning into their world. I don't think the United States need to rule the world in order to survive or remain a place of hope. At the same time, all of the bright Chinese colleagues I work with speak utterly fluent, totally imperfect English. The Roman Empire spoke Koine, fluent and imperfect Greek, for centuries. Half of Europe still basically speaks Latin. The question here might be which parts of a culture are tied to a government and which aren't, and how that relates to the parts we want to keep. I don't know the answer to that, and I know I'm biased, because I want to keep reading my Heinlein and I suspect I'm too old to learn proper Chinese.

4. The Balkanization that concerns me comes in the question of what happens to the American Empire when the US falls. There is one way, though, to think of it as a continuation of the British Empire, which continued Rome through Lusitania, and moved its capital into the most progressive colony with an ultimately comparatively minor civil war called a war of independency and an ultimately short period of estrangement. So one way to ask this question might be: Where's the next Capitol, with an o?

There is no prospect of the United States disintegrating. It would take far more sustained and organised efforts for that to happen.

That bis the extremists. Most people are not extremists. Yes, the extremists are loud and make a lot of noise, but they are just traveling around like carnies and throwing a shit show. You just happen to have tuned out anything that is not part of the shit show. Most people don't even care that much.

Barring some unforseen circumstances, at the most I don't believe the US is in true danger of collapse. I can see California engaging in political sabre rattling should Trump win reelection with Oregon and Washington throwing support to California, particularly if red states systematically having voting issues like Georgia did for its primary just now, but even that shouldn't bring us to that tipping point.
With that said, to address your question itself: Even with my personal opinion that the western states would be better off forming their own union (Pacifica, especially if Hawaii were to be included), no, I don't think I would applaud it, for reasons mentioned above by others. It would be far too disruptive, both on the national, the international, and global scale. The consequences would be far reaching, dire, and likely impossible to predict; in essence, it would the butterfly effect rippling through the following centuries.

As an optimistic guess, as the US fractures, Europe would likely scramble to try to pick up the economic fallout and try to reassert itself on the global stage. The UK could possibly be required to rejoin the EU (if that's even possible) just for survival; there's no question that Russia and China will try to get as much dominance as possible, but I suspect that it's India that will make surprising headways here, provided that the entente between Pakistan and China doesn't flare up badly. I say that as India already owns a number of English institutions, such as Jaguar.

It'll be Hindi! But, no, as English is the unifying lingua franca of India, if anything, Spanish will become more dominant in the former US.

Despite the siren call of Cascadia, where California goes, Oregon and Washington will follow -- I-5 ties the three states together far stronger than Oregon's famed anti-California crowd likes to admit. Pacifica would likely be the best name, especially since Hawai'i and Guam would most likely find it in their best interest to join. Most likely, they'd develop a strong relationship with Canada and Mexico.
Nevada has strong ties to California already, vis a vis Las Vegas.
Russia would most likely be very interested in reacquiring Alaska, though Alaska itself would either choose to stay with Pacifica or ally/join with Canada, to keep Russia at bay.
Other regions would stick together -- Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio (maybe). The northeast likewise. They'd have forge strong ties with Canada, particularly as there are enclave issues at play (Minnesota's Northwest Angle; Derby Line, Vermont, etc). Other regions would band together, as noted upthread.

This really is something that gets overlooked a lot. The USA was in an insanely good position in the years after WWII with a large educated population, well industrialised economy, and not blown to shit by the war. A major advantage was also that they were similar enough to the UK to effectively replace the British empire without too many differences in political style and language. The way that American empire is declining is largely just what would have happened to the British empire if WWII hadn't accelerated it by decades.

Barring another major global conflict, we might not see anyone taking the position of global leader in the way that London/Washington/Moscow did. Globalization and increased communication means there is less opportunity for any one country to take a massive advantage. Even now (at least before this Covid-19 economic crisis) there were ongoing commentaries about manufacturing starting to leave China for cheaper shores.

I don't see Balkanization along geographic lines, or existing state boundaries. The biggest political conflicts are between urban areas and rural ones. It's the same in every state, red or blue. How do you divide that neatly? You can't.

Addressing the individual questions/points:

1. I would not applaud or welcome the end (which could be many generations away) because before it happened we would have temporary splits. We had one in the 1860's and it wasn't pretty. A marriage normally doesn't end without a few tumultuous incidents leading up to it. More to the thread focus when WWII ended (an "away" game for the U.S. team) Europe was in chaos for many years and the power vacuum in much of Europe was filled by Russia and we know how that worked out.

2. What would happen next is anybody's guess but if it happened within the next few years there would be an undeclared WWIII (with the now defunct US not involved) as the most powerful nations fought among themselves to control our vast resources and strategic geography. With the U.S. gone there would no deterrent - with the guard dog dead the foxes would fight to get into the chicken coop. The U.S. population would be the weak powerless villagers watching the death & destruction unfold and keeping their fingers crossed just to survive.

3. Depending on who happens to win the war for what remains of the U.S. would determine if we speak Chinese or Russian or Korean or whatever. I would imagine like in many nations there would be an official language and various languages of the conquered/controlled citizens. Many smaller countries (like Dagestan) under the general umbrella of Russia are in this situation. English isn't going away anytime soon because it's so ingrained and accepted as "normal" in the entire world by now - displacing it entirely would be reinventing the wheel.

4. Balkanization of the U.S?* I would imagine the three west coast states would be obvious. They have a coastline/ports and a huge economy and resources and are
generally already joined politically. But as already stated the rural areas may not share the viewpoints of the urban areas. Those are the breaks! The urban areas will have the power and
make the rules. How the rural folks are treated would depend on the new government of Kalifornistan. But considering the rural folks would feed Kalifornistan (supplemented by food imports) it might behoove them to treat their folks fairly. If they don't then they will fail miserably.

How the other regions are organized could vary quite a bit because the geography and political viewpoint isn't as cut-and-dried as that of the west coast. Regardless whatever new autonomous nations are formed they better have the geography and resources to support them to last in the long run.

* assuming we aren't taken over completely as covered in question 2 and 3.

Disagree completely with this. Even under the most extreme balkanization scenarios the children states of the US would be individually strong nations that would have more in common with their North American siblings than any of the rest of us.

Not even with Trump's re-election campaign openly using nazi symbolism to send a message to the extreme right, and Trump himself openly threatening force against people who exercize their First-Amendment rights? This is not just more of the usual stupidity from an inept administration; this is a game-changing shift in the intentions of the US government.

If the November election is hotly contested, the way the 2000 election was, and SCOTUS awards the victory to Trump by a 5-4 decision even though it appears to a solid majority of Americans that Biden actually won, don't you see any way the "Republic of California" might actually take the step of pulling out? And if CA goes, a number of other states will be tempted to go with them.

I'm not saying this is the most likely scenario, at all. In fact, I consider it relatively unlikely. But I am saying that the chances of it are non-zero.

Maybe, but I think it would be quite dependent on the manner in which the split occurred. If it involved a lot of warring and bad blood, you could easily end up with a host of small nations sealed up tight, pointing their guns at each other rather than joining forces in some sort of mutual defense agreement.

Let's also not forget that in a Balkanized lower 48, water rights become a huge sticking point in the western half of the country. I could easily foresee conflicts just over that issue alone.

You were the best country in the world at taking in an integrating migrants. About 100 years ago. Not so much any more.

No you're not. Not even close. You consistently rank as one of the worst-educated industrialized nations.

That doesn't mean you don't have some excellent institutions of higher learning and produce some really well-educated people, but as a totality your education system sucks and your people aren't very well-educated.

I certainly don't wish for an end to the United States, but like all once-great empires you've become complacent and lazy. You can't coast on past achievements.

It's not about them fighting with each other, it's about them speaking Chinese after being conquered as the post I quoted seemed to suggest (or at least that's how I read it).

They might disagree and even fight, but the minute a shared enemy emerged they would fight it off together.