It is hard to deny that this is a pretty common thought these days. I hear a lot of people making sounds in that direction, regardless of their more traditional ideological views.
We'd have to figure out how the nukes are divided up, however. Though what is it they say about possession being 9/10ths of the law...
The Lord's our shepherd, goes the psalm
When Alabama gets the bomb.
~ Tom Lehrer, "Who's next"
Well, the USSR broke up without too much fuss about who got the bombs; as far as I can see, only Russia was interested. But I can imagine a Divided States of America in which both successor states have nukes. I suspect they'd be reluctant to attack one-another. They might even both choose to disarm, depending on the nature of the break-up.
Sure. You could abolish the Union entirely, and just have states. I don't think it's obvious that that would be a terrible thing - either for USAians or for the rest of us. My sense is that a lot of USAians don't really want a Union. I suspect that many USAians think the Union was effectively a coup.
The question remains: how do you spread the nukes around?
My guess is that the residents of Wyoming could do without nukes. They have a lot of land-based nukes, that serve no defensive purpose (for Wyoming); they just make Wyoming a target. I wonder which state might decide that they need nukes, to defend themselves from someone outside North America?
Second question: how you divide up the military equipment that isn't nuclear - ships, tanks, rockets, planes etc. All that equipment carries a heavy cost - it has to be maintained, replaced, tested etc.
Belgium and the Netherlands and Luxembourg were the same country, at least for some time, then split up and are good countries to live in (probably beating the US on most quality of life metrics). Same goes for the Nordics which were at different times in various combos (Denmark-Norway, Sweden-Finland, Sweden-Norway, Iceland was a part of Denmark).
Also a bunch of other examples where the countries aren't necessarily the best to live in, but pretty much everyone is happy they split - Yugoslavia, India/Pakistan, West Pakistan/East Pakistan. Singapore/Malaysia (to be fair Singapore were kicked out).
A split of the US among the crazily politicised duopoly wouldn't be the end of the world. One part would be reactionary as hell and move time back (on social and ecological issues), the other.. who knows.
Fantasizing about the end of the world/country/whatever is a popular pastime in the US. It is reasonable to suspect that the talk is primarily the 1% loudest people and that if anything starts to look like it's getting real, the remaining majority will step on the brakes.
There's a time bomb baked into the conceptualization of mythos of the United States.
The US in many ways legitimizes itself as a government in the traditional of the "western european project," by evoking the ritual, esthetic, ideals, and historical lineage of ancient Greece and Rome. From names and architecture, to values and ritual, there is an establishment of ties, real or imagined to be real.
On one hand, this works fantastically to mentally cement the US in the greatest of greats, but we cannot ignore the visibly obvious - that ancient Greece and Rome declined and fell. By drawing a parallel to ourselves(us-centric obvs) we draw a parallel to our own decline. We we're honest with this comparison, we have to be honest about the demise of these governments too. It's not possible to separate the too.
We'd have to figure out how the nukes are divided up, however. Though what is it they say about possession being 9/10ths of the law...