[SolarCross]

Generally we think governments or peoples acquire sovereignty over territory only through conquest. Perhaps that is generally true but there have been many exceptions. Russia sold Alaska to the US, Hong Kong was leased from the Imperial Chinese, Israel was gifted to Jewry from the British Mandate, the US made an offer on Greenland etc.

Might it be possible to solve international rivalries through more territory swapping and trading rather than predominantly through conquest?

We are in an age of where literacy and technology makes the logistics of democracy and referendums possible to a very extensive degree, as we saw with Brexit. So even territory trading need not be just decided only by chief executives but also through popular referendums.

Let us say we had a situation in the near future where the voters in California had taken the Californian governance on a course of full socialism while the people of Taiwan and Hong Kong would rather preserve their freedoms under the protection of the US rather than the PRC. Rather than the PRC and the US have a massively destructive war to decide who gets to rule over which territory why not just trade them? It would be a very complicated negotiation for sure, potentially involving many millions of people and multiple referendums. But if it avoided a war and made for a new arrangement that was satisfactory for all concerned then would that not be worth the trouble?

Could the US and the PRC ever trade Taiwan and Hong Kong for California? Do the ethnocentric issues complicate this too much?

[late]

Could the US and the PRC ever trade Taiwan and Hong Kong for California?

No.

It ain't that easy.

[Sivad]

I got mixed feelings on that. I don't want the PRC on the border but I'd love to be rid of California. I'd rather just trade populations. All the calitards can go to chintardia and all the good Chineese people can move to New Taiwan.

[SolarCross]

No.
It ain't that easy.

I am not saying it is easy, but only would it be worth it and possible in situations where otherwise it would be settled by war?

Are the insurmountable hurdles you see strategic or ethno-cultural?

@Sivad mentions not wanting to give the PRC a bridgehead on the US, that would be a strategic concern I guess.

[late]

[quote="SolarCross"]

I am not saying it is easy, but only would it be worth it and possible in situations where otherwise it would be settled by war.

Are the insurmountable hurdles you see strategic or ethno-cultural?

[usermention=45209]@Sivad[/usermention] mentions not wanting to give the PRC to gain a bridgehead on the US, that would be a strategic concern I guess.

[/quote]

There's a million reasons that won't happen. Prob isn't a full million, but we're talking thousands and thousands..

Cal has the largest GDP in the country. No one is going to give that away. Cal is also the major shipping hub, giving that away would be creating a serious vulnerability. How do we handle ownership? If you're a farmer, you're don't going to be doing that in Hong Kong...

But if the businesses don't move, the workers don't move. So what would be accomplished?

Even for something as simple as travel, moving millions is hardly a trivial problem.

There there's the courts, where millions would be arguing they want no part of this. You'd need thousands of new court houses and judges.

[late]

You started out talking about conflict resolution, which is a good intent.

If we ever get a president that's good at foreign affairs, one of things on his plate will be finding a modus vivendi with China. We are going to have to share. Which means a diplomatic way of sharing the Pacific, and of acknowledging China's growing military capability.

Of course, first we will need to repair the damage Trump has done to our relationship with China, and that won't be easy.

[SolarCross]

Cal has the largest GDP in the country. No one is going to give that away. Cal is also the major shipping hub, giving that away would be creating a serious vulnerability. How do we handle ownership? If you're a farmer, you're don't going to be doing that in Hong Kong...

But if the businesses don't move, the workers don't move. So what would be accomplished?

Even for something as simple as travel, moving millions is hardly a trivial problem.

There there's the courts, where millions would be arguing they want no part of this. You'd need thousands of new court houses and judges.

There is a Calexit movement, maybe it is trivial now, but one day it might be significant. Indeed the feds are not going to let California go for free as you correctly point out. Cali is worth a lot to the feds in taxes. So the feds can never let Cali go for free, they would need some compensation.

A broadly a simliar situation exists for Taiwan and Hong Kong, both have "reservations", to put it mildly, of falling or remaining under PRC rule. Taiwan is de facto independant but the PRC does have somewhat plausible claim on owning Taiwan. That claim is only strengthened by the US and other powerful nations de facto treating the PRC as the legitimate rulers of China. China wants both Hong Kong and Taiwan.

Clearly there is a possible solution where the PRC gets an equally valuable territory in exchange for giving up their claims on HK and TW. While the US feds get HK and TW instead of California. We could run the numbers but HK and Taiwan together are probably worth as much as California.

On the ground the differences need not be so great. California pays taxes to the PRC instead of the feds and the PLA is responsible for their defence instead of the USAF. Vice a versa for HK & Taiwan.

A straight swap and no one loses anything neither soldier nor civilian.

[late]

Clearly there is a possible solution where the PRC gets an equally valuable territory in exchange for giving up their claims on HK and TW. While the US feds get HK and TW instead of California. We could run the numbers but HK and Taiwan together are probably worth as much as California.

It's a fantasy, nothing more.

One last thing, in the real world, you need people that want that sort of change. They don't, and they won't.

[SolarCross]

It's a fantasy, nothing more.

One last thing, in the real world, you need people that want that sort of change. They don't, and they won't.

Calexit is a thing. Brexit was a thing. It happens. If you do not like the HK for Cali hypothetical how about Scotland? Maybe QE2 could sell her stake in Scotland to the EU? Or swap it for Normandy or something.

[late]

Calexit is a thing. Brexit was a thing. It happens. If you do not like the HK for Cali hypothetical how about Scotland? Maybe QE2 could sell her stake in Scotland to the EU? Or swap it for Normandy or something.

Putin was behind Calexit. Without Russian money it's a handful of kooks in a bar.

Have you ever considered a visit to reality?

[SolarCross]

Putin was behind Calexit. Without Russian money it's a handful of kooks in a bar.

Have you ever considered a visit to reality?

Have you considered you might be paranoid? Try not to take everything personal. Stay with the concept if you do not like that particular example.

[late]

Have you considered you might be paranoid? Try not to take everything personal. Stay with the concept if you do not like that particular example.

Have you considered the possibility your knowledge base is not only quite limited, but much of it is simply wrong.

"Social media accounts with ties to Russia pushed a huge Twitter trend in favour of an independent California on US election night 2016, BBC Trending has learned."

What I find interesting is you pushing nonsense that Putin pushes. I bet that's not the last time we will see you do that.


https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41853131

[SolarCross]

Have you considered the possibility your knowledge base is not only quite limited, but much of it is simply wrong.

"Social media accounts with ties to Russia pushed a huge Twitter trend in favour of an independent California on US election night 2016, BBC Trending has learned."

What I find interesting is you pushing nonsense that Putin pushes. I bet that's not the last time we will see you do that.

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41853131

Okay I did a little googling and sure it does look like there are links between calexit and the russian govs. I was skeptical at first because the russkies seem to be behind everything these days. You would think there were at least some gaps in their scheming.

Can we consider the concept now and forget that particular example?

[late]

Can we consider the concept now and forget that particular example?

I already did. Repeatedly.

You haven't even tried to respond to the specific objections because there simply is no response available.

You are trying to sell something no one wants, no one would accept, is so close to impossible that the difference is negligible, and is completely lacking in common sense.

[SolarCross]

I already did. Repeatedly.

You haven't even tried to respond to the specific objections because there simply is no response available.

You are trying to sell something no one wants, no one would accept, is so close to impossible that the difference is negligible, and is completely lacking in common sense.

It has happened before though, see the OP. Israel has grown partly through conquests but also land purchases. Is it bad to do the latter if the alternative is the former? In principle is land trading worse than land grabbing? Were not the separate states of the US not united by negotiations rather than conquests?

Trump put in a bid for Greenland, it was rejected but if could have been accepted and it could have been supported by referendums in Greenland and / or Denmark. Alternatively the US absolutely could have taken Greenland by force, the Danish army are not even remotely competition for the US. The US chose the legal path even though it was unsuccessful. Is that not the right path to be encouraged?

[late]

It has happened before though...

Is that not the right path to be encouraged?

Yes, under extraordinary circumstances.

There is no path.

[SolarCross]

Yes, under extraordinary circumstances.

There is no path.

How about Africa? There are complaints that the borders drawn during the Scramble for Africa are arbitrary and take no account of traditional and geographic boundaries. That being the case the relevant authorities could trade land to get a more natural fit.