That might be a good thing for the Red States, especially if the national debt is split proportionally.
Although, I think there would probably be some alterations to state's borders in certain areas of certain states along the borders.
The most difficult part, I should think, would be running the logistics of a split region country between the West Coast and the Northeast with another country in the middle.
Economically, the Red states would have a more agricultural base with some areas of high technology and the lion's share of oil and usable coal resources. This would probably become a cash cow if/when trade with the Blue states openned. The smaller population density would almost certainly create a higher proportion of exports to imports, pushing up the Blue dollar and allowing for a quicker adjustment to compensate for losing the resources and capabilities of California and such.
Culturally, I think the Red states would still be more influential with the entertainment infrastructure of California.
National crime rates would drop in the Blue states with the loss of the Northeast and California and their more concentrated urban populations. If a more controlled border between California and other Red states were put in place, exported crime could also decrease. The flipside is that, proportionally, the border length versus population of the Blue and Red states would go up along with the added stress to the states to manage it.
From a national defense perspective, the Red states, due to their economies, would be able to afford a more expensive military and a higher percentage of population availible to man their military. Barring their anti-war stance, they would have more of an advantage militarily. By comparison, the Blue states would have proportionally less money and a lower population in spite of possessing the major facilities for producing F-15's and other high-tech goodies. Perhaps money could be had by the Blues by selling military munitions. In addition, the Blues, while likely to keep a high percentage of the ground forces and equipment, would likely loose a majority of the naval resources along with most of the current coastline. Naval spending, proportionally would drop. In addition, barring invasion from the Reds or from Allies with the Reds, the Red's position on the borders of the Blues may act as a buffer against invasion.
I think such a division might be good for both sides eventually if a division were executed peacefully and in good faith.
no subject
Although, I think there would probably be some alterations to state's borders in certain areas of certain states along the borders.
The most difficult part, I should think, would be running the logistics of a split region country between the West Coast and the Northeast with another country in the middle.
Economically, the Red states would have a more agricultural base with some areas of high technology and the lion's share of oil and usable coal resources. This would probably become a cash cow if/when trade with the Blue states openned. The smaller population density would almost certainly create a higher proportion of exports to imports, pushing up the Blue dollar and allowing for a quicker adjustment to compensate for losing the resources and capabilities of California and such.
Culturally, I think the Red states would still be more influential with the entertainment infrastructure of California.
National crime rates would drop in the Blue states with the loss of the Northeast and California and their more concentrated urban populations. If a more controlled border between California and other Red states were put in place, exported crime could also decrease. The flipside is that, proportionally, the border length versus population of the Blue and Red states would go up along with the added stress to the states to manage it.
From a national defense perspective, the Red states, due to their economies, would be able to afford a more expensive military and a higher percentage of population availible to man their military. Barring their anti-war stance, they would have more of an advantage militarily. By comparison, the Blue states would have proportionally less money and a lower population in spite of possessing the major facilities for producing F-15's and other high-tech goodies. Perhaps money could be had by the Blues by selling military munitions. In addition, the Blues, while likely to keep a high percentage of the ground forces and equipment, would likely loose a majority of the naval resources along with most of the current coastline. Naval spending, proportionally would drop. In addition, barring invasion from the Reds or from Allies with the Reds, the Red's position on the borders of the Blues may act as a buffer against invasion.
I think such a division might be good for both sides eventually if a division were executed peacefully and in good faith.