"So What Will North America Look Like?" Topic

So what will North America look like after the collapse of the United States of America?

Would California, Arizona, and New Mexico once more align with Mexico?

Perhaps Texas would revert to an independent Republic.

Would Hawaii fall within the sphere of influence of The People's Republic of China?

Alaska might come under the suzerainty of Russia.

Washington state, Oregon Idaho, and Montana might align with Canada.

Would the Midwest, Old South New England, and Mid-Atlantic states devolve into a patchwork of city-states run by independent warlords?

I may have to re-watch Kevin Costner's "The Postman" to see how he handled this dilemma.

So what is the premise of the USA collapse? That would go a long way to determine the formation of any coalition of by old states. A USA would likely lead to a collapse of Canada and Mexico as well.
Regional consolidation for resources would be the reasons for future wars.

PSA of California, Oregon and Washington. Local wars to control the Colorado river.
Many states will no longer exist and will not join a group as a whole state.
City states no, since a small area cannot produce enough resources. Resource control will be the key. Attitudes toward neighbors will also be important.
No Mexico and no Canada.

I suppose after a apocalypse of some kind a small area of the USA could hold it together maybe not effected. Interesting post apocalypse gaming with that.

Watch the "Walking Dead"

Wolfhag

link

Mega Cities and the Cursed Earth, baby!

BTW, Hawaii is a long way from the US West Coast, but it's also a lloonngg way from China. Plus, it's not food self-sufficient. You get your own mini-apocalypse there if the supply lines are cut. And, if the US undergoes an apocalyptic event and stops being the world's top consumer, China has only a little while until their economic apocalypse.

I doubt any will team up with Mexico, which is already a failed narco state.

I could see CA, OR, and WA banding together, and perhaps cozying up to the Chinese.

I'm not sure Canada would fail. They're pretty self-sufficient.

Alaska would probably fall to the Russians, though the Canadians could make a play too. Russia wins though, since they've got nukes, and Canada's military is weaker.

Hawaii goes to the Japanese.

Az and NM might be rolled by the Mexican narco cartels.

TX would probably go independent.

Idaho and Montana could go Canadian.

I'll leave the rest for others to speculate.

Oklahoma would split and part of it would become a new Indian Territory.

There used to be a post-apocalypse boardgame where the middle of the U.S.A. had turned to sea.

I'm not sure Canada would fail. They're pretty self-sufficient.

Don't be so sure….Canada could easily break up into the Maritime Provinces, Quebec, and some sort of state made up of western provinces. In some ways Canada is more of a confederation than a firm state, and there is resentment between those three regions.

A traditional speculation based on a slow crumble. The most powerful new country would be Texas which has for decades emphasized that they were the only area which had all of the strategic resources in their border. Speculation in college even back in the 1970s, (yes the same discussions have been going on since the turbulent 1960s) was that Texas initially expands to absorb the Oklahoma area and then tries to secure a border running along the Mississippi River in Louisiana.
The Northeast is the most likely to descend into warlord anarchy with no local resources. Pennsylvania would pick up the pieces.
As stated the California, Oregon and Washington block would be strong. Alaska would have to be conquered to be controlled by Russia but more willing to join a West coast confederation or join with Canada.
Hawaii stays independent until Australia offers overlord protection.
The mid-west and Deep South have the potential to form large stable blocks.
Virginia, West Virginia and Maryland fly the old United States flag as a legitimate successor.
These associations have been seen frequently in books and college simulations.

I rather suspect things might pan out in a similar way to the collapse of the Soviet empire?
Using the slow crumble of the British Empire, one could expect most of the newly independent states fighting civil wars…

I REALLY hope this discussion is – and remains – suppositional, I wish the USA all the best and peace and goodwill to all!

Well, the honest answer is "it will look however is best for your campaign." But if you look at other collapsed states--Russian Empire, Soviet Union, Austro-hungary, Turkish Empire, Burgundy, Yugoslavia--it's a mix of current internal borders--in our case, state lines--ethnic divides and cease-fire lines. Which is most important depends on the nature of the break-up and the interests of concerned foreign powers.

I figure minimum breakup is three nations--Pacific Coast, Acela, and Heartland. Max is about 20-22, unless it breaks all the way down to "every state for itself" and then I'd expect annexations and alliances to move us back to the 20-22 range within a short generation. Read Garreau's "Nine Nations of North America" sometime. And Davidson's "The King's Shadow has no Limits."

"After me, the Empire will sink like Atlantis, and the children of these children will look for it upon the maps in vain."

Herky, there are worse things than the death of nations, even beloved ones. I would rather the flag came down tomorrow than that it came to represent a regime of block wardens and censors, with border guards to keep the inhabitants it. Watch the news and ask yourself which is more likely.

Hmm. If multiple Horsemen ride--Famine and Death, say as environmental collapse and plague--we revert to the pro-Columbian 500 nations, but the rest of the world might look much the same.

If it's civil war brought on by a failed coup--think English Civil War, Russian Civil War or Spanish Civil War--we'd all better hope for my three state solution, brought on by military stalemate. Winners in such situations are fanatics, and losers have nowhere to go. At least China had Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong to preserve the culture. (Could Hawaii or Alaska do as much for us?) But dissolution by military action tends to leave large territories, since smaller ones get picked off. I could (just) see Texas, Utah or Vermont managing to escape during the fighting, the way Poland, Finland and the Baltic States did in the RCW.

But if the central government loses authority--think the fall of the Soviet Union--there is no immediate bloodshed, and power goes back to the next lower level--the states. Yes, they'd need larger unions for commerce and possibly for defense. But they also don't want to be swallowed up. Washington and Oregon may resemble California culturally, but do they want to be overwhelmed by a flood of Californians? (And do their politicians want to be shoved aside?) A loose coalition would be my guess--with Hawaii perhaps an "associate." Would an independent Mormon-majority Utah be interested in joining a Gentile nation? New Mexico and Arizona could easily be majority Spanish-speaking. Would they join a larger chunk of English-speaking states--bound to include either Texas or California--or would they cut some deal with northern Mexico? You see how fast you arrive at my 20 state solution.

Best possibilities for serious powers made up of multiple states would be the old Northwest Territory, the northeast, and the Confederacy east of the Mississippi. In neither case would any one state be powerful enough to dominate. But in each case I'd expect breakaway territory on the periphery.

It will look like…

Did I miss something ? Didn't hear anything about this happening ? 🤔

It's a future event, Legion. The date is (marginally) more uncertain than the next wargame convention. I'm still trying to get it scheduled for after my lifetime, but a lot of Austro-Hungarians and Yugoslavs had similar ambitions.

The Republik of Cali could manage all by itself quite well, if necessary.

Lots of resources, tens of millions of people, AND the tech to keep things running, assuming the power doesn't get turned off.

Of course, the taxes paid by the local fiefs to the numerous "sheriffs" in charge of them will be astounding, so…….

Obviously it will split along the lines of the major college football conferences.

There will not being any significant tech in a confederation of States situation. Unity with Tech sharing is necessary for effective tech use. California may do software but they lack the minerals to construct hardware. Cyber connections between States will be nil.
Robert what is Acela?
A focus on a three confederation is not practical.
Texas is more capable of self sustaining than California.
Nothing in New Mexico or even Arizona that Texans need. Our college data of resources clearly shows a Texas advantage.
The South would never align with the a Great Lakes or Northeast region.

The same fragmentation of the American Colonial era will again cause chaos in the New England and PA to NY area.
After decades of conflict you might see a three country North America but not immediately.
I also think it is foolish to think Mexico and Canada would not be affected by a USA collapse. No more money or financial institutions, no trade, no stability.

Rudy, from the Acela Corridor, itself named after the (relatively) high-speed passenger line serving only reliable leftist constituencies in the Northeast--Washington to Boston by way of New York Philadelphia, Baltimore and Providence. That's slightly unfair of me: it's the only part of the US with something close to the population density of Western Europe. But when you hear an American talk about tax money going to high-speed passenger rail, that's usually what they mean. (When they talk about "hyperspeed" they mean it will take them through flyover country with one stop in Chicago.)

You used to hear the term Boswash applied to much the same area.

I say again, the number and shape of the pieces will depend more on the nature of the breakup then on resources--and if governments only took territories with something they needed, we could have skipped much of the colonial era. Governments mostly work like short-sighted habitual thieves: they take things because they can, not because they have a purpose for them.

Agree

I don't see any breakup. The TV broadcasts have made the USA fairly homogeneous.
I don't see any real reason why the USA would fragment.

Because it would make a great mini series.
Got with guns.

GoT USA.

First, we'd need a Mad King…

With an overbearing daughter…

And a venal son…

Who have to leave their ancestral home…

And go to a desolate region populated with self important ingrates…

And this land is protected by a great wall erected to keep out peoples of questionable culture and hygiene…

Far to the north…

Well, so much for that…

Cyberpunk 2077 (upcoming computer game) sort of has this with an alternative history line, basically the corporations step into the void although the US Government survives to continue to try to re-unify those regions that broke away. The US basically survives, although lots of power is stripped from the federal government (and the people) by the Corpos. link

@Legion 4
Did I miss something ? Didn't hear anything about this happening ? 🤔

Yeah, they never tell ME anything either.

The TV broadcasts, John? Yes, and according to the Imperial Bulletins, the Grande Army is in good shape. Please note that most "international" reporters seldom go so far inland as the western suburbs of DC--if coming from the east--and NEVER go as far inland as the Imperial Valley if coming from the west. Of course, a lot of our own reporters do no better. You should have seen the "into the darkest Midwest" articles which accompanied the 2000 and 2016 elections.

Here, people keep trying to sell me t-shirts with proposed boundaries on them.

Yeah, they never tell ME anything either.

I wish I would have known sooner. I'd have worn different shoes … 🤔

It's a future event, Legion.

Well at least I have more time to pack now … 😎🎒

I wonder if Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, or Chernenko ever pondered the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

We're not defeated yet.

I just recently read an article about fourth generation warfare. The primary idea was that after the Peace of Westphalia most warfare became the wholly owned subsidiary of the newly created nation-states. Prior to that warlords often played a significant role with people fighting less often for the "state" than other reasons like religion or booty.

So first Generation war was the linear warfare of the 18th and early nineteenth centuries.
Second generation was a centralizing of warfare, firepower on targets through WWI.
Third generation used speed, decentralization and encouraged initiative (think blitzkrieg and Air-Land Battle Doctrine).
Fourth generation warfare is asymmetrical with states fighting clans, tribes, mobs, religions, businesses such as the cartels.

If left uncontrolled the thought is that people who would not fight for their nation-state might indeed fight for something but that those causes have the potential to initiate the breakup of the the current nation state system.

Other areas to look at with similar break up situations such as Libya and Syria, although they are much smaller and with less resources to start. However to put a picture of what a small change in the logistics grid – think about the stores right before a major storm or at the start of COVID.