346
Steve Bannon asks appeals court to keep him out of prison due to his importance in Trump’s campaign
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2024
346 points (99.1% liked)
News
23310 readers
3743 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, it stopped the United States from breaking up before. What better case study than the exact same scenario. Just this time its a much much stronger union army against a much much poorer economic system for the seceding army.
Other countries would not supply the secessionists with any military equipment and they almost certainly wouldn't purchase any products from them either. International sanctions against the seceding states would end the "war" before it even began.
I think you fail to realize how big and important of a country the west coast of the US would be if it broke off. Countries wouldn't have an option on sanctions, because the headquarters of some pretty foundational companies are located there (Microsoft, Apple, Google, Netflix, etc.)
California, Oregon, Washington together could split off, and it would be the third largest economy in the world behind only the remaining US and China.
It wouldn't be as ugly as you assume, the rest of the country would kind of be forced to accept it. It would look far more like Brexit than the US civil war.
I recognize that, but even if they were to still somehow navigate the economic situation, the government officials would immediately be charged with sedition and a warrant would be issued for their arrest. They wouldn't be able to flee the country because any allied country would extradite them to the formal United States government. So the only other option would be to stay and forcefully defend their arrest. That brings in the national guard and any escalation would drive us toward a true civil war. MAYBE secession becomes so popular amongst the population that they also are willing to defend their secessionists political leaders with force, but I doubt it. Even in the event of it becoming a true civil war, the rest of the United States is absolutely massive. There'd be no way of defending against all of the avenues of attack. Air superiority would be established immediately by surrounding AFBs, mobile AA systems, and returning aircraft carriers. Naval blockade would prevent any foreign aid from reaching the West Coast. Lack of any real microchip processing plants would make the proliferation of modern arms impossible....
I just can't see any other outcome than those government leaders being arrested, replaced, then any secession being nullified and reversed by the newly installed government officials. Though if you are able to think of something, I'd be open to thinking of a potential rebuttal.
Its not going to be a couple of politicians doing it on their own. It would likely be a referendum with popular support from the citizens (again like Brexit)
The Federal government really has no recourse against "we aren't sending you money any more" they can't send in the military to make sure the money gets transferred. The military can't achieve that particular objective.
They could try to make an example of some key politicians, but with popular support for such a split that would likely lead to some bad outcomes for anyone who tried to enforce it.
They don't have any sort of legal method of replacing those people either. Anyone appointed from out of state would just promptly be ignored.
This isn't the same as a lot of situations where there would need to be hard borders right away that need to be defended or objectives that could be captured. There's no need for military anything. Not that military intervention would work very well anyways, far too many soldiers would refuse orders. You'd see a lot of people refusing, walking away, or even subverting. Those states make up something like 20% of the US population, and if you add in people who have friends or families there it's probably 30-40% of the military that wouldn't be okay with attacking anything.
Starving them out with a blockade? Lol, not happening. Besides, both Mexico and Canada (both massive food suppliers) have direct land connections to those states. The rest of the US is going to threaten those two countries if they send in food? No way either of them listens to that threat. The remaining US doesn't have as much global power as you'd think.