Brexit showed us that situation like this the ‘bigger person’ in the conflict will try not to starve millions of people to death and will not simply cut them off. We as individualise would surely like to see Brits/Texans suffer all the consequences but politicians are usually more pragmatic than this and have to think long term. Turning Texas into 3rd world country wouldn’t do any good to anyone. Blocking supplies as some sort of collective punishment would simply be immoral.
Of course they are not going to secede but if they did they would still get all the supplies they need. Their economy would suffer greatly but they would just blame US and keep going.
I mean, we’ve also seen a lot of cases of the exact opposite. It’s entirely a question of which position is held to be long term better not just to the parties in question, but to the actual politicians as well.
The UK is more valuable to the EU as a less favorable trading partner than as a pariah, and there was no plausible way for the EU to convince it’s members that there was any course to take other than letting them leave exactly as fast as the treaties said they could.
They made it about as painful as they could while fulfilling their treaty obligations.
There is no defined legal mechanism for a state to leave the union. There’s no long term incentive for politicians to create one. There’s no individual incentive for one either, at the national level.
Punishing secessionists to maintain precedent would be the only viable move for any politician.
Of course you don’t let them starve, but you also don’t let ships into your territorial waters near areas with violent insurgents, and you warn your neighbors that trade will suffer if they’re found to be supplying said insurgents.
It’s literally the position of the US government that secession is not possible, not just “not permitted”.
States didn’t seceed during the civil war, they were never their own country, and any treaties or legal actions taken by their supposed governments have no weight.
Don’t look at it through the lens of “how would the US treat the new nation of Texas”, but “how would the US treat the armed rebels in the state of Texas”.
I mean, we’ve also seen a lot of cases of the exact opposite.
Where? Where was there a recent independence movement that succeeded and was punished by the original country?
Of course you don’t let them starve, but you also don’t let ships into your territorial waters near areas with violent insurgents, and you warn your neighbors that trade will suffer if they’re found to be supplying said insurgents.
Wouldn’t blocking supplies starve them?
Again, this is silly debate as Texas will not secede but if they do it’s crazy to think that US government would just abandon millions of democratic voters living there. There are pretty much two options: either US government would use force to regain the rule there or would pretend that everything is OK and keep cooperating (like Spain and Catalonia, give them more and more independence without formally recognizing it). They definitely would not impose blockade and risk creating North Korea style regime right at their border.
Clarifying that it has to succeed is a bit weird. The civil war is the part of the host nation retaliating against the breakaway faction. It’s kinda like asking when has a country ever retaliated after they stop retaliating.
In any case, the war in Kosovo and the Sri Lankan civil war come to mind. Oh, and Ireland. That one’s nice and complicated.
You blockade supplies from other countries, because it’s unacceptable for someone to supply armed insurgents.
Trade and supplies can still be moved around by the Government to ensure they don’t get taken by insurgents.
That’s just how you do counter insurgency. Keep them from getting food, fuel and ammunition. Give those things to people who agree with you, and make sure they have everything they need.
I agree that Texas isn’t even going to try, but if they do the US isn’t going to just say “okay, now you can use our shipping lanes to trade with China while we sort this out”.
I would absolutely expect Texas to throw a fit that they would be treated like a foreign country that now has to do trade deals and visas and shit rather than just a cool super state that can do whatever they want.
If you or anyone would like to see Brits or Texans ‘suffer their consequences’ for a minority of misinformed people deciding the future of their state, you need to get some empathy and perspective. Texans haven’t voted for this, and 17 million people decided Brexit for a country of nearly 70 million.
I just meant is a normal human reaction (I even said it would be immoral. Did you see that?). I understand that people like to see this as some sort or ‘justice’. You keep telling Brits that it’s a bad decision and it would hurt them and then voilà, they suffer the consequences. It just feels good to be right but of course if you think about it a little you realize it’s a overall terrible thing and feel bad for all the misled people.
Brexit showed us that situation like this the ‘bigger person’ in the conflict will try not to starve millions of people to death and will not simply cut them off. We as individualise would surely like to see Brits/Texans suffer all the consequences but politicians are usually more pragmatic than this and have to think long term. Turning Texas into 3rd world country wouldn’t do any good to anyone. Blocking supplies as some sort of collective punishment would simply be immoral.
Of course they are not going to secede but if they did they would still get all the supplies they need. Their economy would suffer greatly but they would just blame US and keep going.
I mean, we’ve also seen a lot of cases of the exact opposite. It’s entirely a question of which position is held to be long term better not just to the parties in question, but to the actual politicians as well.
The UK is more valuable to the EU as a less favorable trading partner than as a pariah, and there was no plausible way for the EU to convince it’s members that there was any course to take other than letting them leave exactly as fast as the treaties said they could.
They made it about as painful as they could while fulfilling their treaty obligations.
There is no defined legal mechanism for a state to leave the union. There’s no long term incentive for politicians to create one. There’s no individual incentive for one either, at the national level.
Punishing secessionists to maintain precedent would be the only viable move for any politician.
Of course you don’t let them starve, but you also don’t let ships into your territorial waters near areas with violent insurgents, and you warn your neighbors that trade will suffer if they’re found to be supplying said insurgents.
It’s literally the position of the US government that secession is not possible, not just “not permitted”.
States didn’t seceed during the civil war, they were never their own country, and any treaties or legal actions taken by their supposed governments have no weight.
Don’t look at it through the lens of “how would the US treat the new nation of Texas”, but “how would the US treat the armed rebels in the state of Texas”.
Where? Where was there a recent independence movement that succeeded and was punished by the original country?
Wouldn’t blocking supplies starve them?
Again, this is silly debate as Texas will not secede but if they do it’s crazy to think that US government would just abandon millions of democratic voters living there. There are pretty much two options: either US government would use force to regain the rule there or would pretend that everything is OK and keep cooperating (like Spain and Catalonia, give them more and more independence without formally recognizing it). They definitely would not impose blockade and risk creating North Korea style regime right at their border.
Clarifying that it has to succeed is a bit weird. The civil war is the part of the host nation retaliating against the breakaway faction. It’s kinda like asking when has a country ever retaliated after they stop retaliating.
In any case, the war in Kosovo and the Sri Lankan civil war come to mind. Oh, and Ireland. That one’s nice and complicated.
You blockade supplies from other countries, because it’s unacceptable for someone to supply armed insurgents.
Trade and supplies can still be moved around by the Government to ensure they don’t get taken by insurgents.
That’s just how you do counter insurgency. Keep them from getting food, fuel and ammunition. Give those things to people who agree with you, and make sure they have everything they need.
I agree that Texas isn’t even going to try, but if they do the US isn’t going to just say “okay, now you can use our shipping lanes to trade with China while we sort this out”.
I would absolutely expect Texas to throw a fit that they would be treated like a foreign country that now has to do trade deals and visas and shit rather than just a cool super state that can do whatever they want.
If you or anyone would like to see Brits or Texans ‘suffer their consequences’ for a minority of misinformed people deciding the future of their state, you need to get some empathy and perspective. Texans haven’t voted for this, and 17 million people decided Brexit for a country of nearly 70 million.
I just meant is a normal human reaction (I even said it would be immoral. Did you see that?). I understand that people like to see this as some sort or ‘justice’. You keep telling Brits that it’s a bad decision and it would hurt them and then voilà, they suffer the consequences. It just feels good to be right but of course if you think about it a little you realize it’s a overall terrible thing and feel bad for all the misled people.