I mean, we’ve also seen a lot of cases of the exact opposite.
Where? Where was there a recent independence movement that succeeded and was punished by the original country?
Of course you don’t let them starve, but you also don’t let ships into your territorial waters near areas with violent insurgents, and you warn your neighbors that trade will suffer if they’re found to be supplying said insurgents.
Wouldn’t blocking supplies starve them?
Again, this is silly debate as Texas will not secede but if they do it’s crazy to think that US government would just abandon millions of democratic voters living there. There are pretty much two options: either US government would use force to regain the rule there or would pretend that everything is OK and keep cooperating (like Spain and Catalonia, give them more and more independence without formally recognizing it). They definitely would not impose blockade and risk creating North Korea style regime right at their border.
Clarifying that it has to succeed is a bit weird. The civil war is the part of the host nation retaliating against the breakaway faction. It’s kinda like asking when has a country ever retaliated after they stop retaliating.
In any case, the war in Kosovo and the Sri Lankan civil war come to mind. Oh, and Ireland. That one’s nice and complicated.
You blockade supplies from other countries, because it’s unacceptable for someone to supply armed insurgents.
Trade and supplies can still be moved around by the Government to ensure they don’t get taken by insurgents.
That’s just how you do counter insurgency. Keep them from getting food, fuel and ammunition. Give those things to people who agree with you, and make sure they have everything they need.
I agree that Texas isn’t even going to try, but if they do the US isn’t going to just say “okay, now you can use our shipping lanes to trade with China while we sort this out”.
Ok, we’re simply talking about two different things. You’re saying that if US would fight Texas they would cut off their supplies. Yes, your right, kind of obvious.
What I’m talking about is that they would not target civilians even in case of a civil war and in case Texas did somehow became independent (they will not) they would not try to starve all Texans to death as a form of punishment. We were talking about consequence of Texas becoming independent, not about what would happen during the war. Yes, the independence movements are often bloody but even Ireland has good relations with UK now. UK didn’t block their accession to EU or anything like that just to punish them.
Where? Where was there a recent independence movement that succeeded and was punished by the original country?
Wouldn’t blocking supplies starve them?
Again, this is silly debate as Texas will not secede but if they do it’s crazy to think that US government would just abandon millions of democratic voters living there. There are pretty much two options: either US government would use force to regain the rule there or would pretend that everything is OK and keep cooperating (like Spain and Catalonia, give them more and more independence without formally recognizing it). They definitely would not impose blockade and risk creating North Korea style regime right at their border.
Clarifying that it has to succeed is a bit weird. The civil war is the part of the host nation retaliating against the breakaway faction. It’s kinda like asking when has a country ever retaliated after they stop retaliating.
In any case, the war in Kosovo and the Sri Lankan civil war come to mind. Oh, and Ireland. That one’s nice and complicated.
You blockade supplies from other countries, because it’s unacceptable for someone to supply armed insurgents.
Trade and supplies can still be moved around by the Government to ensure they don’t get taken by insurgents.
That’s just how you do counter insurgency. Keep them from getting food, fuel and ammunition. Give those things to people who agree with you, and make sure they have everything they need.
I agree that Texas isn’t even going to try, but if they do the US isn’t going to just say “okay, now you can use our shipping lanes to trade with China while we sort this out”.
Ok, we’re simply talking about two different things. You’re saying that if US would fight Texas they would cut off their supplies. Yes, your right, kind of obvious.
What I’m talking about is that they would not target civilians even in case of a civil war and in case Texas did somehow became independent (they will not) they would not try to starve all Texans to death as a form of punishment. We were talking about consequence of Texas becoming independent, not about what would happen during the war. Yes, the independence movements are often bloody but even Ireland has good relations with UK now. UK didn’t block their accession to EU or anything like that just to punish them.