Without the federal government, how would the tiny Republic of New Hampshire remain safe from foreign threats and hostile world powers? We would be living in the smallest country in the world, and we would not have the money or manpower for a serious military, right?

While this is a valid question, the solution is relatively simple. I split it into two parts: 

First, I remind skeptics that if we are to discuss threats to our survival, the government is by far the most dangerous one. Governments are responsible for nearly 100% of the murder committed in human history. Chinese dictators like Mao Zedong, Russian dictators like Stalin, the Kim Jung family in North Korea, Castro in Cuba, Hitler in Germany, the list goes on. Even in the union, local governments kill thousands of people each year in ‘police shootings’ and the federal government massacred loads of innocent adults and children in the Waco, TX incident, interned Japanese Americans, and committed many more atrocities against humanity. 

Additionally, the federal government makes its citizens less safe instead of making them safer, according to many experts. The DC politicians regularly destabilize entire regions, infuriate entire populations (often by killing innocent children or placing embargos on innocent foreigners), and they often give billions of dollars worth of military training, weapons, and other equipment to the very worst terrorists and hostile regimes in the world. The latest such example was the parting gift of 600,000 M16s, 2,000 armored vehicles, 40 aircrafts, 4,702 Humvees, 162,000 pieces of communication equipment, and 16,000 night-vision goggles that the brilliant politicians from DC gave to the Taliban, one of the most vicious terrorist groups in the world. The gift was estimated at a value of over $20 billion – which you were forced to pay for via federal taxes. Yes, your hard-earned money was used by DC politicians to buy M16 guns (which you are not allowed to own according to federal law) to the Taliban fighters. We must not forget that the most infamous terror group of the past decade – ISIS – was totally created by the federal government when they trained rebels to overthrow a government only to find that those rebels were far from saints themselves, and would soon become ISIS. 

It is hard to say for sure, but many believe that the federal government is a net detriment to our safety. The US military certainly could defend us from many hostile attacks and like does act as a major deterrent to enemies, but they often arm the worst terrorists and oligarchs (including Putin and the CCP), destabilize regions, hurt innocent children, and royally mess up defensive operations in the homeland. 

While foreign governments could theoretically dispatch their militaries to attack us, our own government already demonstrated that it can and will. In fact, nearly every opponent of allowing New Hampshire citizens to vote on independence cites the fact that the US military could and should roll in tanks and kill us all as one of the primary reasons we should not peacefully separate from DC. 

Make no mistake; hostile authoritarian governments such as China, Russia, Iran, and others surely would love to kill any vulnerable American. Their goal is to weaken the western culture of (diminishing, yet still somewhat existent) personal and economic freedom. So, how would an independent Republic of New Hampshire defend itself from the Chinese military?

As we mentioned previously, physical wars do not generally occur in the modern era. This is because:

1) the world’s citizens have largely grown to support a civil and peaceful planet where humans can coexist without killing each other and 

2) the weapons that the large nations possess are so devastating that the collateral damage would render nearly any attack counterproductive. Any nuclear bomb would kill or severely injure the entire North America, and it would cause injuries to nearly every human on Earth. If China were to attack a state, they would want to take it over and use its resources, right? If you blow up the whole state, it would be relatively useless to the attacker, and you will have just killed your would-be workers (or slaves). 

The more effective attack would be one that captures the state’s resources and/or people. The Chinese would love to take over our businesses and properties and enslave the people who live here. In order to do this, their military would have to physically invade the land. Even if they were well equipped and trained, they would face tremendous resistance, as mentioned previously. New Hampshire’s citizens would enjoy homefield advantage and total decentralization, allowing for absolute guerilla warfare. No two units would have the same tactics or equipment. There would be no ‘central command’ to take over. Nearly every citizen would have an AR-15 or a long-range rifle, and there would be tanks and other powerful military equipment on the defending side, as well. Remember, New Hampshire already does have a military. It is called the ‘National Guard’, and it is the state’s military. Tyrants from DC (especially Teddy Roosevelt) have thoroughly destroyed the link between National Guards and their states. By WW2, the National Guard was essentially part of the US military, and was deployed overseas, leading to the death of 175,000 State Militia soldiers. Today, there is practically no difference between National Guardsmen and US soldiers. Again, this is all the more reason we must take back our sovereignty from DC before it’s too late. 

The Guardsmen have been so intertwined with the US military that they have undergone the same training, much of which is focused on ‘just following orders’ without asking questions of superiors – there is no time to question orders in the middle of a battle! If New Hampshire did decide to peacefully withdraw from the union and govern itself, either the National Guard would remain loyal to its state and protect its citizens, or it would fight on behalf of the DC politicians, proving the most pessimistic secessionists right in the debate about state sovereignty.

Ideally, the Guardsmen would remain loyal to their neighbors. If not, we would naturally raise our own organized and semi-organized militias. 

The Chinese soldiers would essentially have to go door to door killing each and every one of New Hampshire’s 1.3 million citizens, many of which look like this:

Would a foreign government really want to attack millions of these people on their own territory? What is to be gained by doing that?

Additionally, the state may already have a military alliance with Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts, and possibly the US military (if their divorce ended amicably). Of course, the more allies the sovereign state would have, the stronger their defensive capabilities would be – and the less likely any foreign military would be to risk invading in the first place. 

“What about cyberattacks? China is already engaged in such warfare, are they not?”

Yes. China and other foreign governments likely are currently fighting us in the cyber-security realm. They surely spy on every state government on the planet (as does the federal government), and I do not trust them or any other government. This issue currently exists, though. It’s not an issue that secession would create. Would a sovereign republic be in a better or worse position to handle cyber-attacks by foreign governments? 

Again, decentralization answers this question for us. As Jacob taught us, “don’t put all your eggs in one basket”. Currently, the DC politicians are doing us all a disservice. Our brilliant rulers leave all Americans very vulnerable to cyber attacks. How? If China wants to take over control of the united states – and thereby, to all of its people – all they need to do is hack one computer network located in Washington DC. Because the DC government has tremendous amounts of data (social security, birth certificate, wages, taxes, address, height, weight, race, relationships, etc.) on each and every person in the union, we are all extremely vulnerable to the ultimate cyber attack by a hostile government or terrorist group. If each of the 50 states were sovereign, like the founders intended them to be, China would have to hack 50 central computers in order to gain access to the same data (or to inject malware) on all Americans. If we decentralized even further – down to counties, cities, and eventually, to individuals – China would have to launch 330,000,000 individual successful cyber-attacks in order to overpower us technologically! THAT is the power of decentralization!

A sovereign New Hampshire would be in an even better position than most states, though. An incredible amount of our residents currently work in programming and/or cyber security. We also have one of the highest usage rates of cryptocurrencies per capita anywhere in the world. Once all federal regulations were lifted, New Hampshire would become even more prosperous, cyber-resilient, independent, untraceable, and uncontrollable. 

Our foreign policy would likely be similar to Switzerland’s. We would be neutral and mind our own business. We certainly would not inject ourselves into battles in Syria and Ukraine and Cuba. This would be a welcome change for our citizens after decades of suffering under a government that forced them to fund wars or military battles or operations in 196 countries around the world. 

On the issue of finances, we have more good news. New Hampshire sends $15.3 billion dollars to DC each year. The DC politicians send $3 billion to the state for its budget, plus some amount of money to individuals for welfare, plus some grants to local governments (like the funds for police to operate sobriety checkpoints, drones, and BEARcats). The highest estimate of the amount of money that DC sends to DC in total is $14.9 billion, which is $314 million less than we send them. Much of that money is Medicare, Medicaid, social security, TANF, SNAP, HUD, WIC, and other welfare programs. Individually, we would each save around 20-30% of our income once we no longer have to pay federal income taxes. All business owners would also enjoy keeping 21% more of their income. All other federal taxes would also not exist in New Hampshire anymore. But the tax savings would pale in comparison to the savings from reregulation. Currently, the immeasurable number of federal regulations costs the union’s economy far over $2 trillion annually. Without burdensome regulations, the Republic of New Hampshire would likely become the most prosperous nation on the face of the Earth – by a long shot. Keep in mind that we already have the highest median household income in the union. Yes, we would easily be able to afford a sufficient military. We would not be the weakest country in the world. Not even close. 

Would we be the smallest country in the world? 

New Hampshire has 1.3 million residents. Monaco and Liechtenstein, two totally legitimate countries, both have under 40,000 residents. Gibraltar has under 34,000 residents. Greenland has 56,000 residents. Grenada has 112,000. Belize has 400,000. Iceland has 341,000. New Hampshire would likely be tied with Estonia as the 80th smallest country in the world. We would likely be tied with Qatar for 7th place in GDP per capita. The united states would be in 9th place in the world with its $59,000 per capita GDP. It is hard to predict our total GDP once independent, but it might be somewhere in the middle of the pack due to our small size but incredible education, free market, and worth ethic. 

To those who believe that our economy would suffer because the federal government would place a full embargo on all trading into or out of New Hampshire, keep in mind that an embargo is internationally considered an act of war. So, would the federal government declare war against Granite Staters for exercising their natural human right to a peaceful separation from an abuser? If they would be that cruel, they would only prove our point – they are evil and abusive. 

Additionally, an embargo on New Hampshire would seek to starve not only everyone in New Hampshire, but it would also completely cut off Maine from the rest of the union. While it is possible, an embargo is very unlikely. But if we had to live on our own resources for some time, we could certainly do so. 

I address the potential outcomes of a military attack on peaceful New Hampshire citizens by the federal government in a little more detail in ‘The Blueprint For Liberty’. 

Another issue that seems difficult to reconcile is the current nuclear arsenal owned by the US military. Again, it may not be much of an issue after all. The two options are: The US military keeps all nuclear arms, or they give the New Hampshire military roughly one-fiftieth of the nuclear arms. In the worst-case scenario, the federal government would retain all of its nuclear weapons. The citizens of New Hampshire are extremely peaceful and are not very paranoid. We understand that there is a nearly zero percent chance that the federal government would use nuclear weapons in New Hampshire or anywhere else within a thousand miles of the continent, because such an action would kill or severely injure hundreds of millions of people, including DC politicians. 

If we are going to compare the potential harm of foreign and domestic threats in regards to independence, we must address another very important fact: Currently, the single biggest threat to regular citizens is the federal government! They are the ones who violate us. They regularly steal our money, spy on us, abuse us, control us, and threaten us. If we are going to do a cost/benefit analysis of separation, we must also consider that the single biggest threat to our safety, liberty, and property would be eliminated if we were to separate from DC politicians permanently.