So i would support Guam's statehood, but i think a legitimate objection is Guam's population is notable below that of our smallest state.
Is there any political interest you've seen in the Pacific territories in banding together as a state or should divergent identitods and interests make that unappealing?
It’s a good point. I and a few others have advocated for an Independent Pacific—forming a regional bloc independent of great powers. But the Pacific is too diverse and its sovereignty statuses too diverse to merge as part of a US union. But ultimately GOP will not allow any new states if it’s expected they’ll vote Democrat (which is the case in Guam and CNMI). The DC problem
Agreed, though passing statehood legislation on a partisan basis has an established history. Likewise it is slightly easier than the DC problem as there's no constitutional amendment giving grounds for a Supreme Court fight (a fight worth having but a complicated one).
This isn't to say it is a better idea than Independent Pacific, but if unobjectionable to a majority of residents it may still be a good idea.
China’s deep foray into the Caribbean will undoubtedly be seen in Washington as part of long-term plan by Beijing to create its own first island chain. Which it likely is. This poses a potential existential threat to mainland America. If it does nothing to preempt this possibility/probability, it would effectively be a signatory to its own death warrant. But, if the US acts militarily, this would give China a legitimate right to attack the Kuril Islands, the Japanese archipelago, Taiwan, the northern Philippines and Borneo, i.e. extending all the way from the Kamchatka Peninsula in the northeast to the Malay Peninsula in the southwest.
I raise this point because all seven islands that comprise a potential Chinese first island chain in the Caribbean will confront a similar dilemma to that of Guams’.
So i would support Guam's statehood, but i think a legitimate objection is Guam's population is notable below that of our smallest state.
Is there any political interest you've seen in the Pacific territories in banding together as a state or should divergent identitods and interests make that unappealing?
It’s a good point. I and a few others have advocated for an Independent Pacific—forming a regional bloc independent of great powers. But the Pacific is too diverse and its sovereignty statuses too diverse to merge as part of a US union. But ultimately GOP will not allow any new states if it’s expected they’ll vote Democrat (which is the case in Guam and CNMI). The DC problem
Agreed, though passing statehood legislation on a partisan basis has an established history. Likewise it is slightly easier than the DC problem as there's no constitutional amendment giving grounds for a Supreme Court fight (a fight worth having but a complicated one).
This isn't to say it is a better idea than Independent Pacific, but if unobjectionable to a majority of residents it may still be a good idea.
[Resubmitted to vainly fix a typo]
China’s deep foray into the Caribbean will undoubtedly be seen in Washington as part of long-term plan by Beijing to create its own first island chain. Which it likely is. This poses a potential existential threat to mainland America. If it does nothing to preempt this possibility/probability, it would effectively be a signatory to its own death warrant. But, if the US acts militarily, this would give China a legitimate right to attack the Kuril Islands, the Japanese archipelago, Taiwan, the northern Philippines and Borneo, i.e. extending all the way from the Kamchatka Peninsula in the northeast to the Malay Peninsula in the southwest.
I raise this point because all seven islands that comprise a potential Chinese first island chain in the Caribbean will confront a similar dilemma to that of Guams’.