Importance of waterways
"In the Third World, downriver countries sometimes find themselves constrained by upriver neighboring countries who control the source of their water supply. For example, Turkey has control over how much water remains in the Tigris River as it flows into Iraq. The United States has been forever free of such concerns due to its large size and lack of hostile neighbors. But if the US were to break up there might well be conflicts between the newly established subnations which share access to important rivers. Both the Mississippi and Missouri rivers now run through three nations, and other important rivers cross through at least two. How might this affect relations between the future nations?" - Soap on the other wiki
This got me thinking, regarding the question of whether the Midwest has access to the lower Mississippi. If it controls the upper portion and the Missouri river, might it have some leverage to back it up vis-à-vis the CSA? Or perhaps it would find itself making concessions to the CSA in hopes of gaining better trade opportunities. Eddy 21:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Too many landlocked states?
Admittedly this seems like quite a minor quibble, but I do wonder about the viability of so many landlocked countries. They don't seem too common in real life and the ones that do exist tend mostly to be backwaters or impoverished. On the other hand, Switzerland has proven quite successful despite its landlocked status so it need not be a problem in itself. Still, I have to wonder what keeps all those landlocked rural states from ending up like those countries in Latin America or Africa who suffer from similar lack of development or water access. Eddy 21:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)