A land bridge wouldn’t really help with the finances. There’s already a few roads that go all the way up to Alaska. Most things going from the lower 48 to Alaska still are shipped by sea or air.
It’s not the fact that Alaska isn’t contiguous with the US that is the problem. The problem is that Alaska is very far from the US’s core population and economic centers, and Alaska itself has little population, and most of its land has extremely low economic value. Adding more low-productivity territory between Alaska and the US won’t change that equation. (Vancouver is definitely not a low-productivity territory, though capturing it by force would be a nightmare.)
Think of it this way. A country has economic engines and economic sinks. The engines provide the tax revenue to cover everything else. The engines are your major industrial cities, your big population centers, agricultural areas like the Mississippi Valley, etc. The engines are what provide the core material needs of the society. The sinks are territories you annex not to serve as economic engines, but because they provide non-economic value. Maybe they provide a place to station troops or naval forces, making it harder for an adversary to invade your core engines. Maybe they provide a vital strategic resource like oil. You can always trade for these resources, but owning the land they’re under means you can’t be cut off from these resources by a trade embargo. Maybe you annex a territory simply to prevent it from becoming a lawless failed state that would cause trouble to spill over your border.
You take on sinks because they increase the safety and stability of your core regions. Alaska does not pay for itself, not even close. It’s valuable to the US because it serves as a valuable place to station troops, and because its oil and other resources cannot be cut off through a trade embargo. And we’re better off having it rather than letting Russia having a foothold on the continent. If anyone proposed cutting off Alaska today, I would call them an idiot. Having Alaska is the US purchasing an insurance policy against future disruptions. But like any insurance policy, on average it costs you more than it pays out.
But in the scenario we were considering, the US simply can’t afford to maintain these “nice to have” territories anymore. It’s like when you lose your job and have to cut back on expenses, sometimes insurance is something that has to get cut.
If anyone proposed cutting off Alaska today, I would call them an idiot.
I agree.
A land bridge wouldn’t really help with the finances. There’s already a few roads that go all the way up to Alaska. Most things going from the lower 48 to Alaska still are shipped by sea or air.
We’re acting like finances are infinite already, and as long as people keep trading in dollars they are. And in this scenario we’re not considering what does/doesn’t make sense; we’re considering the idle thoughts of one person worried about his image.
I was working on an argument to try to justify having a big road all the way up through BC to Prudhoe Bay, and having a railway as well, but I can’t make it make sense with the pipeline already in place unless you just really wanted one or were trying to add a dependency on railway travel to that area. Greenland doesn’t make sense to me, either, and that’s apparently moving ahead.
But in the scenario we were considering, the US simply can’t afford to maintain these “nice to have” territories anymore. It’s like when you lose your job and have to cut back on expenses, sometimes insurance is something that has to get cut.
As long as there’s a market for US dollars the US doesn’t have to drop anything. I know I’ve made a dissatisfying, reductionist argument, but it is what it is. In the event that people still trade in dollars we can keep on as we have, and as long as we don’t go around alienating allies and threatening to not fulfill military treaties there’s no reason that should stop. If that did happen then going to war is a time tested way of giving the economy a boost.
A land bridge wouldn’t really help with the finances. There’s already a few roads that go all the way up to Alaska. Most things going from the lower 48 to Alaska still are shipped by sea or air.
It’s not the fact that Alaska isn’t contiguous with the US that is the problem. The problem is that Alaska is very far from the US’s core population and economic centers, and Alaska itself has little population, and most of its land has extremely low economic value. Adding more low-productivity territory between Alaska and the US won’t change that equation. (Vancouver is definitely not a low-productivity territory, though capturing it by force would be a nightmare.)
Think of it this way. A country has economic engines and economic sinks. The engines provide the tax revenue to cover everything else. The engines are your major industrial cities, your big population centers, agricultural areas like the Mississippi Valley, etc. The engines are what provide the core material needs of the society. The sinks are territories you annex not to serve as economic engines, but because they provide non-economic value. Maybe they provide a place to station troops or naval forces, making it harder for an adversary to invade your core engines. Maybe they provide a vital strategic resource like oil. You can always trade for these resources, but owning the land they’re under means you can’t be cut off from these resources by a trade embargo. Maybe you annex a territory simply to prevent it from becoming a lawless failed state that would cause trouble to spill over your border.
You take on sinks because they increase the safety and stability of your core regions. Alaska does not pay for itself, not even close. It’s valuable to the US because it serves as a valuable place to station troops, and because its oil and other resources cannot be cut off through a trade embargo. And we’re better off having it rather than letting Russia having a foothold on the continent. If anyone proposed cutting off Alaska today, I would call them an idiot. Having Alaska is the US purchasing an insurance policy against future disruptions. But like any insurance policy, on average it costs you more than it pays out.
But in the scenario we were considering, the US simply can’t afford to maintain these “nice to have” territories anymore. It’s like when you lose your job and have to cut back on expenses, sometimes insurance is something that has to get cut.
I agree.
We’re acting like finances are infinite already, and as long as people keep trading in dollars they are. And in this scenario we’re not considering what does/doesn’t make sense; we’re considering the idle thoughts of one person worried about his image.
I was working on an argument to try to justify having a big road all the way up through BC to Prudhoe Bay, and having a railway as well, but I can’t make it make sense with the pipeline already in place unless you just really wanted one or were trying to add a dependency on railway travel to that area. Greenland doesn’t make sense to me, either, and that’s apparently moving ahead.
As long as there’s a market for US dollars the US doesn’t have to drop anything. I know I’ve made a dissatisfying, reductionist argument, but it is what it is. In the event that people still trade in dollars we can keep on as we have, and as long as we don’t go around alienating allies and threatening to not fulfill military treaties there’s no reason that should stop. If that did happen then going to war is a time tested way of giving the economy a boost.
But Alaska gives a portion of oil revenue to every resident, $1-3K a year. Sounds like communism to me.