If the 50 states dissolve the present Union they are by definition not standing together. I guess you have never heard of mutual defense treaties? Look you think like statist, I get you. We are different, I believe in a weak Federal Govt. That doesn't mean I believe in a weak defense structure. You should really read about the founding of our country and the republic. Are you a naturalized citizen? You seem a little behind the curve.
Most Americans when thinking about the USC are hung up on the BOR's. That is a mistake, the MOST important thing the USC did was establish(or try to establish) a limited centralized Federal Govt. I put you in this category. .
I guess you have never heard of mutual defense treaties?
Yes. Look a NATO, which only works (and it does NOT work well, I might note) because the U.S. is behind it, pushing. A NATO consisting only of European states would have a lot of rhetoric, and that would be its only accomplishment. Such mutual defense pacts are only a strong as their weakest member. With fifty plus/minus members don't expect much strength.
Look you think like statist, I get you.
Now that you're out of arguments all you can do start the insults. And since I'm not a statist, no, you do not get me at all.
We are different, I believe in a weak Federal Govt.
No,
I believe in a weak Federal Government, a lot weaker than it is now. You have the Micawberish idea that if we destroy the Federal government somehow miraculously the Disunited States will reunify into something better. I expect that if they do reunify - by no means a sure thing - the odds are at least 50-50 it will be worse than it is now, and if they never reunify at all life in these Disunited States will have suckitude greatly exceeding the suckitude of our present situation. In short, I don't like the odds of your proposal, a/k/a gamble, working.