In a post-apoc world where, for a variety of reasons, no nation was able to maintain a large military, would nations splinter into smaller parts. If so, who are the likely candidates? U.S.? Canada? U.K.? Russia? China? Would any U.S. states split - California or Texas for example? What would likely cause a split?
Texas would likely split away and become it's own country again.
Cali would split, but take over Nevada and maybe a few others to maintain water resources. Quebec would declare independence. Most of the rest wouldn't bother, because everyone would be more concerned with staying alive. China might dissolve into civil war. If all nukes were taken out f play, and casualties were a fixed percentage of population, India would roll over Pakistan, and maybe parts of China.
One thing, most deaths in any postapoc setting will be centered on urban areas. So LA and SF would be pretty much gone, and overrun by gangbangers, maybe fighting any cops who were dedicated enough to carry on. The rest of the state is more intelligent on average, not communist like those areas. So a government with no power, put in place by the leftists of the big cities (who would all be dead) wouldn't be able to control the country, and since the response to whatever caused the apocalypse would be obviously wrong, most of the country would just ignore the feds. Some would declare independence.
the response to whatever caused the apocalypse would be obviously wrong,
That is the only thing guaranteed to happen.
What happens depends on so many other things that even an educated guess is impossible. So you have to determine what has happened to "the rest", apart from no large remaining armies.
Are there still (working) governments?
Is there still production (food, clothing)?
Are there still ways of transportation (people, products)?
Is the cause of the PA still around?
Was the impact of the PA event equally devastating around the world?
How many people are left?
Loss of transportation would automatically cause splintering. Might be temporary if there's a possibility that transportation can be restored in a reasonable time. Without transportation everything becomes more local which will cause loss of the bigger picture and in time loss of the feeling for a bigger area (country) than what is reachable without transportation.
You can read in most other PA stories what will happen without government, food, clothing, etc. Each will have a certain impact which determines the level of splintering. It mostly depends on what area can be controlled by a single group. Without a military those areas will be relatively small.
What nation would splinter the fastest and the most dispersed largely depends on the local people. I think, for example, that Americans will be better at creating living groups to survive where as the Chinese will have more difficulties. Strangely enough the poorest countries will have the least problems. What you don't have, you can't loose, the less changes you have to cope with.
I think, for example, that Americans will be better at creating living groups to survive where as the Chinese will have more difficulties.
What are the differences between Americans and Chinese that would make one create living groups and the other not?
What are the differences between Americans and Chinese that would make one create living groups and the other not?
Trust. Social trust in the US/Europe is way better than in China where you have to be careful not to loose 'social points'. That is more or less ingrained in the Chinese people which makes it harder to trust each other even in a PA situation.
Yes, and it wouldn't take lack of a large military to make it happen.
The split, I think, might be into two camps: the people who produce goods and food, and the people whose only product is more laws and regulations telling "those other people" how to live.
This divide is not just mental, it's geographic as well. See Canada, for example - there's a movement in Alberta to separate from the rest of Canada. Same thing might happen here for the same reason: liberals doing everything they can to destroy the economy of the region.
Texas is already a Republic, and should be able to make it on their own (they have seaports, plenty of food, oil, gas, etc.)
California might also, but they can't get by for long without water. There's also a wall (better than Trump's wall) separating them from the rest of the US, it's called the Sierra Nevada range. Let 'em join Mexico (like they would have any other option).
I don't think nations are likely to break up over just the apocalypse.
Break-up would be dependent on a number of other internal and external factors.
If the reason for being unable to maintain a large military is large scale population reduction, but rapid transportation still exists, the reduced military will probably be sufficient to maintain control.
A lot depends on what remains of transportation and communications.
The countries most likely to fall apart are the geographically large nations with ethnically diverse populations Russia, the US and China
For the US, I think the most likely scenario is to break up into 5-7 nations.
2-3 states go fully independent. Alaska and Hawaii, because they are geographically disjoint from the rest of the US. Maybe Texas because they have a history as an independent nation.
Other than those 3 states, the US breaks up into 3 or 4 pieces.
The west coast, California, Oregon, Washington,
The East coast, the original US States.
Everything between the first two. This may further break up into two countries on either an east/west division (Mississippi river as boundary?) or north/south. If the rest of the middle hold together, I think Texas stays in. If the middle splits in two, Texas may go independent or join one side or the other depending on conditions.
in Washington and Oregon they may fra ture along the Cascade mountain range. There are already people in Eastern Washington, Eastern Oregon and parts of Idaho that want to become the state of Columbia.
Personal opinion - what type of splits might occur would depend on the exact cause and severity of the apocalypse.
In an extreme case, it's possible that even states would not remain intact.
In an extreme case, it's possible that even states would not remain intact.
Personal opinion - If it goes that far, we would be down to tribal/clan level, nothing would be left that modern people would recognize as a government.
@AmigaClone
In an extreme case, it's possible that even states would not remain intact.
Personal opinion - If it goes that far, we would be down to tribal/clan level, nothing would be left that modern people would recognize as a government.
While that is one possibility, I can also see cases where existing groups that would want to split a state, would take advantage of the chaos in the immediate aftermath of the events that caused the apocalypse.
If there is enough chaos to cause nations to fracture, the same might be said of 'country subdivisions', especially the larger ones - there are 35 larger than France.
Not post apocalypse, but it happened in 1861 where several counties left Virginia and formed West Virginia.
Not post apocalypse, but it happened in 1861 where several counties left Virginia and formed West Virginia.
After Virginia seceded from the Union, so Virginia wasn't a US state when that happened.
After Virginia seceded from the Union, so Virginia wasn't a US state when that happened.
In Texas v. White, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that unilateral secession was unconsttutional, and that, legally speaking, Texas had remained a U.S. state despite joining the Confederacy. Why wouldn't that ruling apply to Virginia as well?
In Texas v. White
Judicial historical revisionism.
To perpetuate the myth that the US hadn't invaded, conquered, and subjugated a sovereign country, the north basically wasn't going to let anything get in its way. (Ironically, since then, the US has almost always chosen to recognize and if need be help enforce the rights of nations to secede from a larger body when oppressed.)
bk69
12/6/2020, 10:54:16 PM
@PotomacBob
In Texas v. White
Judicial historical revisionism.
So a self-proclaimed American "outsider" now claims the authority to overrule the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Why wouldn't that ruling apply to Virginia as well?
Maybe it would.
But Texas v. White considered the issue in a very different context.
In terms of the admission of West Virginia as a state comprising part of the territory of Virginia, only the official representatives of the government of Virginia would have standing to object, and Virginia was claiming not to be a state any more.
And they would have had to raise that objection before Congress. Odds are they would have been arrested for treason had they tried it.
apocalypse actually means "uncovering" or disclosing something that was hidden. The only people who would consider that a disaster would be the politicians.
There are too many variables to answer the OP question. Chief among them being this:
Is it a regional apocalypse, or a worldwide apocalypse? If the former, there are already examples that suggest no (think 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami). If the latter, it's almost an assurity.
To be honest, I think tensions the world over have been increasing. Individuals have been trying to consolidate their power bases the world over only to be slowly beaten back with increasing belligerence by their inhabitants. When people say 'UK' most people think of it being Scotland/England as the trouble makers, yet there are growing calls for the North of England to separate from the South. For Ireland it becomes a religious problem, so they're well and truly fucked.
Spain has a serious problem with Basque.
France has been on the borderline of serious civil war for the last two years.
Bosnia is still waiting for the UN to look away for a moment. And Kosovo will probably join in at the same time.
What's left of Russia hasn't sobered up enough yet to be a majour issue, but all gloves are off when (if) Putin goes.
Germany has been desperately trying to cover up it's fascism problem and resurgence of Nazi ideology.
The African continent doesn't need an excuse and it's only corporate greed over natural resources that's (barely) keeping a lid on things.
South America, is pretty much controlled by the drug cartels, so it's anyone's guess what will happen there
Myanmar is still chest deep in civil war and again, it's outside influence (corporate and UN) that's keeping it from full blown slaughter.
The EU is hanging on by it's fiscal fingernails, rumour has it Brexit could be the final straw.
Italy is bankrupt (as is Spain) both have basically said they are not re-paying their 'loans' so there is a massive fiscal black hole in the EU's books (which is another reason why it can't afford the UK to leave). And the current 'leadership' is kicking the can down the road in the hope that they will have left (with pension) by the time it can no longer be kicked.
Really, when you sit down and look at it Things don't look good.
And on top of it all, you have China doing things their way, because they know no-one can do anything about it. Currently they are on a not-so-secret-land grab.
Japan is quietly sitting next door shitting it's proverbial pants because it's in China's sights.
I think when it kicks off, a lot of countries are looking at evening the score with neighbours.
Russia and America used to be 'mummy and daddy' and would step in and stop squabbles amongst the kids, but mummy and daddy have divorced and daddy has developed a split republican/conservative personality.
If no nukes are used, then I think densely populated areas will be worst affected, so those counties with the highest proportion of people per mile will be the places to crumble first.
There's been too much corruption at the top for too long, and I think society is heading for a reset.
It would depend on the severity, and how badly each nation was damaged in the exchange.
In a small to moderate one, things in most countries would likely remain the same. Enough of a national identity and infrastructure would remain that things within a few years would likely resume their previous state for the most part.
But in a larger exchange, at that point you might likely soon see all bets off the table. The more damaged and fractured a country would be after such an exchange, the more likely it would "Balkanize" in the absence of any kind of central authority. Especially if critical command and control infrastructure is damaged, and large parts are split away due to areas being inaccessible.
In a post-apoc world where, for a variety of reasons, no nation was able to maintain a large military,
The above defines a world-wide catastrophe. If the nations could not maintain a large military, the government would likely be non-existent or ineffective. What I would expect is there would be a breakdown of the military and police forces; however local police forces may continue to control their local areas.
What that means to me is, no nation would remain intact. All nations would fragment into small regions controlled by a local warlord.
What would likely cause a split?
Literally depends upon what happened.
Do you hit the Earth with a comet, like in Lucifer's Hammer? Or is it a plague? Carrington Event? Nuclear holocaust?
As funny as it may sound, there are contingency plans for each of those in Pentagon files.
How wide spread is the event? If it's the Yellowstone caldera going up, you can kiss off the United States as an effective world power completely, along with any other power in the Northern Hemisphere. That's when you'd see South America, Africa, and Australia become the super power areas of the world.
The ring of fire cutting loose would cause bad things on multiple continents, but wouldn't necessarily result in the destruction of world governments.
World War Z or Black Tide Rising - you're going to simply see remnants of populations surviving, with the only coherent governments being those that control what they can, while they can.
As funny as it may sound, there are contingency plans for each of those in Pentagon files.
Doesn't sound funny at all, but it's an open question as to whether or not any of those contingency plans are actually workable.
it's an open question as to whether or not any of those contingency plans are actually workable.
No plan survives first contact.
I always felt that post-apoc meant 80-90% of people died so there would be no need of government.
There has been a move for years to split up California into 3 states. N. Ca., Central Ca. and S. Ca. mostly pushed by Central Ca. which mostly leans right.
I always felt that post-apoc meant 80-90% of people died so there would be no need of government.
If you aren't strict about the modern view of such things, a tribal chieftain is a government.
Any band of more than a handful of people will need to have someone in charge.
