Ultra-high mountain ranges, seas and oceans because having these natural geographical features as your international borders will make your country safe from large-scale military invasions and the only way for belligerent countries to invade is psychological warfare.
Surely not a river, since it may lead to things like [this](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia%E2%80%93Serbia_border_dispute), since a river changes its course over time.
That's a good question, we lately discussed that river basins or watersheds could be ideal national/administrative borders, since water is the essential element for proliferation and thus one society would be united under their water source (which also feeds ecosystems and their services). Making conflicts about water less probable.
Floods can change the riverbeds. And people can change them artificially.
What if we agree that the river is the border, and the neigbor reroutes the river?
I think mountain ranges are the best land border divide, hard to pass and dont change around like rivers (well erosion does exist but its MUCH slower than rivers changing course and giving us issues like Liberland)
And divide by ocean or sea just looks plain natural. I mean, just looking at a map without names one would naturally assume tunisia and italy are differeny countries, nations being seperated by a large body of water just.. makes sense. Of course there are exceptions
I prefer Lat/Long. Rivers change course, and even when it is amicable there is a "shared ownership" dilemma of the rivers. Continental divides are OK, but are never well defined because who clearly maps rainfall watersheds? And if minerals like gold, silver, or rare earth are discovered, all bets are basically off in border agreements like this. Just ask Pakistan, India, and China.
Yes Lat/Long creates the Port Roberts, WA of the world, but those exceptions can be handled case by case.
Lat/Long suffer from the pesky problem that they tend to run right through existing populations, which is suboptimal for borders. It’s mainly only an option in empty places like Arabia and the Sahara, or with an expanding empire taking its land from others (the USA/Canada).
And even then the border where it met Quebec and New York, Vermont and New Hampshire goes through populated areas. That area was settled a lot earlier than BC and Washington.
I wonder how many Canadians have shipping address mail boxes in that area so they can order from Amazon and technically smuggle the goods back across the border.
They have been squabbling over borders (and fighting limited scope battles) ever since the British Raj partitioned and left. Granted, the squabbling isn't over mineral rights. You know I'm not sure the strategic value of that area.
Water is definitely one of the strategic resources.. the Himalaya-Hindu Kush mountain region is called the third pole coz the glaciers and ice fields contain the largest reserve of fresh water outside the polar regions.
Aside from oceans deserts would be great because they're a logistical challenge to move an invading force over. Take Egypt for example. If invading you'd really need to go via the sea or up along the Nile. In both cases you have the upper hand and can build defences.
None, abolish restrictive statehood.
In lieu of that, oceans. Maritime boundaries are currently a complete PITA, but if we say it just stops at the shoreline (introducing the shoreline paradox, I know) it simplifies things greatly.
I never wrote about rivers being borders. Imho rivers are terrible borders (ifyouaskme all borders are terrible but that's not the subject). Ofc you're right riverbeds are dynamic and humans alter them drastically. River basins on the other hand (see my OG post) are far less dynamic and far more complicated for humans to alter.
Ultra-high mountain ranges, seas and oceans because having these natural geographical features as your international borders will make your country safe from large-scale military invasions and the only way for belligerent countries to invade is psychological warfare.
Plus people don’t live at the tops of mountains or on the ocean.
Chile, Bolivia, Colombia, Tibet, Nepal, and mermaids/mermen would like a word… (I’m missing plenty others, I’m sure)
I mean it's hard to have a land border on an ocean
Sure, with that attitude.
Surely not a river, since it may lead to things like [this](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia%E2%80%93Serbia_border_dispute), since a river changes its course over time.
Sure changed my mind quickly
I like oceans.
That's a good question, we lately discussed that river basins or watersheds could be ideal national/administrative borders, since water is the essential element for proliferation and thus one society would be united under their water source (which also feeds ecosystems and their services). Making conflicts about water less probable.
That's what I was thinking myself, but didn't want to influence the answers.
But what if the water body... moves?
How? Rivers change slowly, watersheds even slower (I'd say even beyond the lifespan of a society).
Floods can change the riverbeds. And people can change them artificially. What if we agree that the river is the border, and the neigbor reroutes the river?
This time-lapse was taken over just 35 years, less than half of one human lifetime. https://youtu.be/lINZNrYLLAw?si=ay41EorW_ibcNZmF
Yeah that's no secret. As I said it's not about rivers, it's about watersheds. No one argues that rivers don't change
Islands work pretty well…
A giant wall of skunks
I think mountain ranges are the best land border divide, hard to pass and dont change around like rivers (well erosion does exist but its MUCH slower than rivers changing course and giving us issues like Liberland) And divide by ocean or sea just looks plain natural. I mean, just looking at a map without names one would naturally assume tunisia and italy are differeny countries, nations being seperated by a large body of water just.. makes sense. Of course there are exceptions
Big ass mountain range. Rivers attract trade, and trade attracts conflict.
Mountain ranges, as they typically also disrupt economic ties, so they are optimal for minimizing cross-border procedures.
I prefer Lat/Long. Rivers change course, and even when it is amicable there is a "shared ownership" dilemma of the rivers. Continental divides are OK, but are never well defined because who clearly maps rainfall watersheds? And if minerals like gold, silver, or rare earth are discovered, all bets are basically off in border agreements like this. Just ask Pakistan, India, and China. Yes Lat/Long creates the Port Roberts, WA of the world, but those exceptions can be handled case by case.
Lat/Long suffer from the pesky problem that they tend to run right through existing populations, which is suboptimal for borders. It’s mainly only an option in empty places like Arabia and the Sahara, or with an expanding empire taking its land from others (the USA/Canada).
And even then the border where it met Quebec and New York, Vermont and New Hampshire goes through populated areas. That area was settled a lot earlier than BC and Washington.
Point Roberts is such a silly border anomaly. I feel like a Nexus pass is mandatory for anyone living there
I wonder how many Canadians have shipping address mail boxes in that area so they can order from Amazon and technically smuggle the goods back across the border.
What happened Pak, India, and China?
They have been squabbling over borders (and fighting limited scope battles) ever since the British Raj partitioned and left. Granted, the squabbling isn't over mineral rights. You know I'm not sure the strategic value of that area.
Water is definitely one of the strategic resources.. the Himalaya-Hindu Kush mountain region is called the third pole coz the glaciers and ice fields contain the largest reserve of fresh water outside the polar regions.
"A border is where two groups of bandits decided to stop fighting each other." - R.A. Wilson
Watersheds. Not the low points, the high points that divide them for sure.
High mountain ranges.
The ocean
A continental divide’s location would change a lot less than any riparian (water) boundary.
Aside from oceans deserts would be great because they're a logistical challenge to move an invading force over. Take Egypt for example. If invading you'd really need to go via the sea or up along the Nile. In both cases you have the upper hand and can build defences.
ITT: people who don't know what "land border" means
None, abolish restrictive statehood. In lieu of that, oceans. Maritime boundaries are currently a complete PITA, but if we say it just stops at the shoreline (introducing the shoreline paradox, I know) it simplifies things greatly.
That would lead to huge countries I guess, at least in continents
I never wrote about rivers being borders. Imho rivers are terrible borders (ifyouaskme all borders are terrible but that's not the subject). Ofc you're right riverbeds are dynamic and humans alter them drastically. River basins on the other hand (see my OG post) are far less dynamic and far more complicated for humans to alter.