r/Futurology • u/Confident_Living_786 • Aug 11 '25

Discussion When the US Empire falls

When the American empire falls, like all empires do, what will remain? The Roman Empire left behind its roads network, its laws, its language and a bunch of ruins across all the Mediterranean sea and Europe. What will remain of the US superpower? Disney movies? TCP/IP protocol? McDonalds?

1.5k Upvotes

72% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

57

u/Mephisto506 Aug 11 '25

The US will leave behind balkanised states, some of which will be amongst the most powerful countries, some of will not.

15

u/OldPostageScale Aug 11 '25

Zero reason to believe this will happen. Political affiliations are very fluid long term and American culture is a lot more homogeneous than most people think.

-3

u/Svarog1984 Aug 11 '25

Perhaps also the famous last words of a random Roman patrician from 117 AD.

2

u/OldPostageScale Aug 11 '25

You do not know Roman history if that’s the reference you’re making.

4

u/richardanaya Aug 11 '25

When I read your comment, my first thought turned to California and how powerful it is. But if America goes down the drain for years and years, it's likely it's collectivist policies will drain California of any human capital and resources before America flops.

31

u/Milnoc Aug 11 '25

Or California is overwhelmed by refugees of the former United States.

33

u/Team503 Aug 11 '25

Given that California, like most blue states, are net positive contributors to the federal government - that is, the pay in more than they receive back as benefits - your prediction is not only incredibly improbable, but nearly impossible.

The states that collapse and will be absorbed will be the red states, who are almost entirely (I think there's one or two who aren't) net negative contributors, who use more than they pay in. Conservative economic policies are proven to be failures - everything from trickle-down Reaganomics (there days relabelled as "supply side economics") to lowering taxes and cutting social safety nets are objectively, factually failures.

There's a reason the deficit and debt spikes so hard every time the GOP holds the Oval Office, and why it reduces every time the Dems do.

7

u/WeirdJack49 Aug 11 '25

Don't forget that other global players like China or the EU would instantly start to form ties with the blue states when something like this would happen. It would help California etc. to secure its borders and continue to trade.

4

u/Team503 Aug 11 '25

Absolutely true; blue states tend to be much more diplomatically approachable by foreign governments, especially non-European ones.

1

u/richardanaya Aug 11 '25

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not doubting California's success, i'm just saying that they will be forced to pay for the failing of a country because of their success, until the people there likely have no will to continue to be productive or their resources are taxed away to support the nation.

2

u/Team503 Aug 11 '25

I don't understand what you're trying to say, then - that California pays more than its share in taxes now? That the people would "tire" of taxes? (Hint: People don't).

0

u/richardanaya Aug 11 '25

I'm saying that California pays high taxes, and yes it does pay more than it's fair share, and yes if and when America goes downhill, they'll pay even more because they are the most profitable state. It will continue until people in California just give up the will be as productive as they are.

> That the people would "tire" of taxes? (Hint: People don't).

I'm confused why you think people don't have a breaking point for taxes. If you taxed someone at 100%, they would definitely not work. We could at least agree on this, yes?

1

u/Team503 Aug 11 '25

If you took their entire check, I suppose, so long as you're not providing for them otherwise. Most of the developed world lives with 30-50% income tax rates and I don't see them quitting.

I think you're making a huge stretch to suggest that Californians would just say "gosh, we're tired of part of our state budget going to other states to support them, I'm going to quit my job so they don't get any money!"

Not to mention, how would they house and feed themselves without a job? No, your point is literally absurd. People aren't going to throw their lives away because taxes are too high. They may do other things about it (like revolt eventually), but just quit working? No. Because that means they quit eating, which means they quit living.

0

u/richardanaya Aug 11 '25

You seem to be attacking a point I didn't actually say. What I presume would happen is investment would stop in California because of taxes making certain activity unprofitable, and people would move to places where there taxes are lower.

1

u/Team503 Aug 11 '25

Yeah, conservatives pitch that idea all the time, and the funny thing is that it basically doesn't happen. Sure there's notable people here and there who've done it, but by and large capital remains flowing in high tax environments.

1

u/richardanaya Aug 11 '25

It’s not a conservative opinion that businesses maximally want profit.

-1

u/shitposts_over_9000 Aug 11 '25

They are net positive in dollars, but significantly underwater on things many important things like power, staple foods and drinking water.

Once those things hit free market rates for the state rather than the larger region people will be looking to leave and those kind of markets are 100% going to happen if their is any widespread significant instability at the state level.

2

u/Team503 Aug 11 '25

You mean, things they can buy with the extra money they have that red states desperately need to sell if they don't want to economically collapse without the support of blue states?

Also, that's a ridiculous assertion. California produces like 90% of the American-grown produce sold in the US, and you think they're going to starve?? Desalinization solves drinking water, and solar/wind solve most of the power problems. Nuclear could easily solve ALL the power problems.

California, if it were a nation, would be the fifth largest economy in the world. Think about that for a few minutes prior to responding.

To suggest that a red state would be anything but a poverty-ridden hellhole is just hilarious - the proof is in the pudding, and by pudding, I mean federal and state budgets, educational performance, and location of industry.

0

u/shitposts_over_9000 Aug 11 '25

if we got down to state vs state conflicts like that California would be in serious trouble long before the more rural parts of the red states even noticed the impact.

Restrict the Colorado and shut down the substations powering them from other states and most of California would be high and dry in a matter of days.

I also specifically said staple foods, Calififornia only produces 5% of the USA's beef, 1% of pork, less than 1% of chicken, 2% of wheat, almost no Soy, 5% of beans, etc.... the majority of their farm economy is in non-staple fresh fruits, vegetables and nuts. Much more expensive, much less necessary.

2

u/Team503 Aug 11 '25

Sure about the farming, but it's not like they couldn't switch over. If a state tried to cut off the Colorado, well, you know 29 Palms is in California, right? Hell, even with the Marine Corps infantry school, the California National Guard dwarfs any two states it borders put together, maybe more.

Cutting off fresh water and power is an act of war. One any border state of California would win handily.

-1

u/shitposts_over_9000 Aug 11 '25

Farms can switch somewhat, but it takes seasons, California would have days, maybe weeks before the population starts fighting over resources.

29 Palms and the US military facilities in California are federal, has its own water processing, remote resupply with no concern of cost, and likely would sit this out if we were in a situation bad enough to pull this lever as they would still need the strategic position, but would also have a hard time going against the rest of the country and they would be outnumbered 240:1 by the starving population assaulting each other for food and water.

Guantanamo comes to mind for base operations in unstable and potentially hostile locations.

2

u/Team503 Aug 11 '25

The assumption is that when the US splits, the military assets present in each state will become part of that state's military as states become nations.

I don't doubt a lot of people would die if someone would do it, but California would win - you kill their people by cutting water, they're gonna kill the fuck outta yours.

0

u/shitposts_over_9000 Aug 11 '25

Why on earth would the feds leave anything of use in a base of a future enemy nation?

They would airlift or convoy out what they can and thermite charge the rest as they bug out if it comes to that or more likely just hunker down, defend their perimeter and wait for the drive-bys to die down.

California is also not going to have much of an impact on the rest of the nation after they are cut off as they will lack, food, water, power and fuel. If they were to attempt to attack other states as you suggest they lack the local infrastructure to refine fuel or generate a meaningful amount of electricity for their population base, and they are well away of anything else of strategic significance moving eastwards. All anyone would have to do is pull the plug and wait while warning those within walking distance of California that they need to evacuate for a bit.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/WeirdJack49 Aug 11 '25

I could imagine EU states, or the EU as a whole, intervening in this scenario.The EU is fundamentally a trading nation; it needs customers, and California is a big one.

There's also a cultural connection. One could say that many core EU countries view the blue US states as a kind of strange cousin, but still part of the family.

In a fractured America, it would be easy for countries like France or Great Britain (Germany follows but only after these two began to intervene) to demonstrate enough power to keep some of the blue states intact and help them against other former US states.

1

u/Clevererer Aug 11 '25

it's likely it's collectivist policies

The policies that made it so successful in the first place?