Succession? Part II

On August 12 2010 there was published here, an op-ed piece warning about the dangers of succession, and how those that advocate it, should view it with much caution, much heavy deliberation and, for lack of a better term “soul searching”.

Let us pose some additional food for thought as it were, and see some major points that should be considered individually.

First and foremost is the defense of the newly formed nation. As we can all agree that that is the primary duty of any government to it’s citizens, and I would say it holds true from representative federal republics such as own to the most tyrannical nations such as North Korea and Iran. Admittedly there is of course a difference in so far as the former, that is the United States defends it’s people out of a desire to protect them from harm. The latter on the other hand are basically run by thugs, whose only goal is to maintain power. However, that being said, the bottom line is every nation’s, primary goal is to defend itself.

So, how would a newly formed nation, (and for the sake of this essay, we shall name it the United Republic of States, or URS, pun not intended), raise a military. Would they seize existing bases? What about the personal and how would that be handled. If history is any reliable wittiness at all one can recall that prior to hostilities of the American Civil War, many, many officers, and no doubt enlisted personal had to make a decision, to quote the band The Clash, “ Should I stay or should I go?” Eventually each man acted upon his own conscience, and chose a side. To extend this thought even further, what about oversea bases? What about ships at sea? Who will control those? Will officers that view succession favorably just take their ships into the nearest port of the URS and hand it over? Would others prevent that from happening?

Where would the funding come from if none of these options fall towards the favor of the URS? Could it, as a new nation expect to just finance it as is currently being done on credit or the issuance of bonds to be paid off at a later date, in order to raise the money? Perhaps the seceding states can open their treasuries for the time being. But that in turn would open yet another can of worms. As previously mentioned human beings by their very nature are flawed and subject to envies, jealousies and a host of other imperfections, and as such would influence any forms of raising revenue. Indeed one would venture to say not positively either.

Therefore to those that so frivolously advocate succession, it is suggested, without thinking of all it would entail should be careful for that which they wish.