So long, dont bump into the door on the way out

[Che Guava]

"Imagine there's no countries,
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too......"

 

[Chieftess]

More warfare.

Reasons?

- Resources.
- Land. (imagine your nation grows - you'll want more land for your people to live in)
- Vandetta.
- Military Coups.
- Domination over other nations for wealth, power, and status in the world (be it by culture, political influence, or military influence). No one wants to be the small guy when there's already huge nations out there.

 

[Masquerouge]

More warfare. Because then other groups would like to gain their independence too, plus who's to say they won't be independence factions among the independence factions, and so on ?

 

[Xenocrates]

6 billion countries; great idea!

I could be PM, chancellor, court jester and leader of the opposition all at the same time!

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Well, being able to come to agreement on something like that in an international forum would imply a certain level of peaceful cooperation in the world. So all these tiny countries would peacefully share and trade resources. Yeah, and maybe chickens have lips

 

[Kamilian]

war would increase, drastically

if a region, which has for years, decades, centuries been bound with another greater entity and participated in the internal trade and distribution of resources, is suddenly separated and cut off from those resources, it may not survive.
or that region itself has a vital economic resource. the country it left would not want to have to open up trade negotiations and thus lose money by having to pay for a resource that it once owned, and would seek to force the separatists back, through allying with any potential trading partners in imposing tariffs, or through outright force.

look at North Korea and South Korea. the South had the main agricultural base of the Korean Peninsula, while the North was more industrial. and now, the North has been in the midst of famines and total economic stagnation, while South Korea needed some foreign help and investments to get its economy up and going and become the regional economic power it is or is becoming today.

so the separate, tiny little states would either start fighting wars amongst themselves for pieces of real estate containing resources and food and such, or they would seek reunion with their "mother country", to regain access to the markets and goods they had lost during secession.

and in any case it would invite chaos everywhere - suddenly EVERYONE who didn't like what their government did could say "well we went to historical archives and found that the people in our province have 1% blood of this other tribe or ethnic group, so the mix between that 1% and 99% makes us our own group", and seek separation. then the government they were trying to leave would react and try to force the country back together.

 

[Left]

Something similar to what happened in the Caucasus post-USSR.

All the new nations would fight against each other and the old nations they belonged to over disputed territory.

 

[Kan' Sharuminar]

More warfare.

Reasons?

- Resources.
- Land. (imagine your nation grows - you'll want more land for your people to live in)
- Vandetta.
- Military Coups.
- Domination over other nations for wealth, power, and status in the world (be it by culture, political influence, or military influence). No one wants to be the small guy when there's already huge nations out there.

Sadly I have to agree. There will always be something to fight over, even if we don't wish for war.

 

[Xenocrates]

BOzO's exposed the insanity of US and British foreign policy. Thought FTW!

There's obviously a role, like it or not, for suppresing revolutions. However, when Saddam tried that he was blasted away. Many Chinese recognise that if Tianamen wasn't crushed civil war would have resulted, even people that were there such as my wife.

I think giving independence is like giving kids candy; in the short term they're happy but when they get older all their teeth fall out.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Japan definitly was not a single state throughout most of its history though.

I dont know about poland but i do know germany wasnt unified until 19th century.

That is not what I am talking about.

I am talking about how "ethnicities" align with political borders today.

Japan is almost completely Japanese. Poland is almost completely Polish (Today of course, as pre-WWII Poland had large ethnic minorities).

 

[bhsup]

Of course Poland is almost completely Polish. By definition, anyone who is a citizen of Poland is Polish, citizen of Japan is Japanese, citizen of America is American, and so forth.

I do not see the validity at all in recognizing ethnicities. Who cares about that anyway (there is one exception, but let's not get that whole religious thing going here)?

EDIT: Cripes, miss one word and change the whole meaning of a post.

"I do see..." --> "I do not see..."

 

[The Yankee]

They'd start fighting over the mixed territories.

And resources. If a Sunni (non-Kurd) Iraq stayed in Sunni lines, they wouldn't get much oil, for example.

And grudge matches. Think of some Sunnis in Iraq today that want to reclaim the whole of Iraq, or if a faction in Russia wanted to reconstitute the Russian Empire.

 

[The Yankee]

Of course Poland is almost completely Polish. By definition, anyone who is a citizen of Poland is Polish, citizen of Japan is Japanese, citizen of America is American, and so forth.

I do see the validity at all in recognizing ethnicities. Who cares about that anyway (there is one exception, but let's not get that whole religious thing going here)?

They care a lot when they don't have a country to call their own.

 

[Dann]

How about if every nationalist, independence movement in the world was allowed to secede and become an independent nation? The Basques, Tamil Tigers, Kurds, Uigers, blah blah and all the rest. Do you think as a result there would be less warfare and strife in the world, or more?

Bad idea. These groups will divide further and further until you have 6 billion countries like Xenocrates estimated. Fights for land and resources will increase for the reasons that Chieftess already said. You'd have single family kingdoms and half acre empires all over the globe, each fighting each other for gain or for gripes real and imagined.

 

[The Yankee]

I don't think it will be that bad, given some pushes for reunification (Germany, Korea...well, some...for instance). But those do create some internal struggles.

 

[Left]

.

I do see the validity at all in recognizing ethnicities. Who cares about that anyway

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ethnic_groups_in_Serbia

A lot of people care.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I could be PM, chancellor, court jester and leader of the opposition all at the same time!

Join a NES and be all those today.

EDIT: OT, people will just find somethoing else to fight about: resources, access to stuff, tariffs, space, TV shows, hair styles etc.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I know, its a silly idea. I was just thinking that maybe nationhood could be rendered worthless by giving it away to all comers, without a fight. Sort of like how the value of money is lowered when you print too much.

 

[sysyphus]

Never underestimate the human capability to find a reason to fight, no matter how petty.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

True, but if nations werent worth fighting over anymore, maybe that natural aggression could be channeled into something like soccer/football. People around the world apparently take it very seriously. Ive seen grown men on TV weeping like little children over the World Cup. They actually die for soccer. How many people get trampled to death every year at soccer events around the world? Maybe I should go out and rent the original 'Rollerball' to see if I get any ideas