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.