That’s great in theory but just as unrealistic in practice for California as it always has been for Texas. The single biggest stumbling block for any state to leave the union for any reason is the military. Most of the other problems can be resolved within the borders of the state, but the disposition of existing and theoretical new military hardware, personnel, and bases will always be a sticking point even assuming the federal government and the other states are willing to let them leave.
Any attempt to leave the US that has any hope of succeeding would be a very long and protracted process that would make Brexit look breakneck in comparison. We’re talking at least a couple decades at a minimum.
It’s either that or another civil war and that has so many variables I’m not sure anyone has any hope of predicting how that would turn out.
Seems like it would be easier to untangle from the U.S. military if the California populace had access to… something… maybe something that throws metal really fast? Idk
We could do without almonds and wine. The US has more than enough soybeans and corn and wheat and potatoes go around. Nobody is going to starve without California’s agriculture.
Why are you growing water intensive almonds in what should be a desert anyway?
Economics in general. California is responsible for a significant chunk of the entire US GDP as well as being one of the primary shipping hubs. My point was more along the lines that these other problems are tractable, you could for instance negotiate trade deals between the rest of the US and California. The military on the other hand is a much tougher problem akin to unscrambling an egg. There’s no obvious way to disentangle California from the greater US military.
Any military option automatically removes any economic benefits that could have been possible in peace time. As soon as any conflict appears, everyone will spend more money on fighting, defending that in saving or creating profit. No matter who may “win”, everyone will lose and it would take decades to recover from it.
Thankfully CA can fund its.own military once we no longer need to send charity to all the red states with dirt for an economy. Actually, our police forces in the state routinely spend more money than entire foreign militaries. I’m sure with a couple trade deals and strategic defense pacts that California can easily become it’s own country.
California’s food industry relies heavily on water from out of state, if those rivers dried up because flow got restricted to a trickle, it would be bad for their industry. None of this would happen without violent conflict though. Remember when the north burned the south to the ground? That is our historical precedent for how to respond to secession.
I could see Oregon and Washington State throwing in with Cali, giving all of them a direct line to nice fresh Canadian Rocky BC Springs because we up here in Canada would be an instant ally of any states that broke off.
Most of Oregon hates Portland these days, and I grew up in Portland. But I don’t think secession would be up to a vote, it would be decided by violence like it always has been. That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be successful, but I think Portland would still be burned to the ground.
That’s always been the case that the rural backwater hillbilly sister-fucking areas hate the cities. The same is true in California. But it doesn’t matter because there are more people in the cities so they have more power so the yokels can’t do shit.
California is at the forefront of water conservation recycling in the US, and supports energy self sufficiency. The water issue is a problem, but not nearly as big as you might think. The state and water districts regularly fund new technologies and invest in storage. It would suck for a while, but in the long run, freedom from federal system might actually speed up changes that need to be made anyway.
The single biggest stumbling block for any state to leave the union for any reason is the military. Most of the other problems can be resolved within the borders of the state, but the disposition of existing and theoretical new military hardware, personnel, and bases will always be a sticking point even assuming the federal government and the other states are willing to let them leave.
I mean it’s California. At that point just get a few neighboring states on board, take all the military hardware and shit and be like “Wanna go to war over it?”.
That’s the problem … if you are damned if you stay and damned if you leave … everyone starts weighing the options of either situation
The choices for staying become … stay and beholden to federal government that ties your hands, manipulates your economy and uses you for their benefit while never allowing you to do what your people want for themselves
or … secede and fight a political, economic and possibly even a military conflict to decide your own future
either options is terrible in the long run (if things continue as they are) but staying means things stay indefinitely terrible while seceding gives a higher chance of political autonomy.
That’s great in theory but just as unrealistic in practice for California as it always has been for Texas. The single biggest stumbling block for any state to leave the union for any reason is the military. Most of the other problems can be resolved within the borders of the state, but the disposition of existing and theoretical new military hardware, personnel, and bases will always be a sticking point even assuming the federal government and the other states are willing to let them leave.
Any attempt to leave the US that has any hope of succeeding would be a very long and protracted process that would make Brexit look breakneck in comparison. We’re talking at least a couple decades at a minimum.
It’s either that or another civil war and that has so many variables I’m not sure anyone has any hope of predicting how that would turn out.
Seems like it would be easier to untangle from the U.S. military if the California populace had access to… something… maybe something that throws metal really fast? Idk
Water is more of an issue than the military. The US relies heavily on California for food so that would be a bargaining chip.
We could do without almonds and wine. The US has more than enough soybeans and corn and wheat and potatoes go around. Nobody is going to starve without California’s agriculture.
Why are you growing water intensive almonds in what should be a desert anyway?
Most vegetables and fruit not imported from Mexico are grown in California. Enjoy your scurvy.
Economics in general. California is responsible for a significant chunk of the entire US GDP as well as being one of the primary shipping hubs. My point was more along the lines that these other problems are tractable, you could for instance negotiate trade deals between the rest of the US and California. The military on the other hand is a much tougher problem akin to unscrambling an egg. There’s no obvious way to disentangle California from the greater US military.
Any military option automatically removes any economic benefits that could have been possible in peace time. As soon as any conflict appears, everyone will spend more money on fighting, defending that in saving or creating profit. No matter who may “win”, everyone will lose and it would take decades to recover from it.
Did you mean to respond to someone else? This seems like a bit of a non-sequitur from my comment.
That’s how you get invaded by the military
Thankfully CA can fund its.own military once we no longer need to send charity to all the red states with dirt for an economy. Actually, our police forces in the state routinely spend more money than entire foreign militaries. I’m sure with a couple trade deals and strategic defense pacts that California can easily become it’s own country.
California’s food industry relies heavily on water from out of state, if those rivers dried up because flow got restricted to a trickle, it would be bad for their industry. None of this would happen without violent conflict though. Remember when the north burned the south to the ground? That is our historical precedent for how to respond to secession.
Much of the agricultural land would be fine. However the population centers in SoCal would have to make drastic cuts without the Colorado River.
I could see Oregon and Washington State throwing in with Cali, giving all of them a direct line to nice fresh Canadian Rocky BC Springs because we up here in Canada would be an instant ally of any states that broke off.
Most of Oregon hates Portland these days, and I grew up in Portland. But I don’t think secession would be up to a vote, it would be decided by violence like it always has been. That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be successful, but I think Portland would still be burned to the ground.
That’s always been the case that the rural backwater hillbilly sister-fucking areas hate the cities. The same is true in California. But it doesn’t matter because there are more people in the cities so they have more power so the yokels can’t do shit.
California is at the forefront of water conservation recycling in the US, and supports energy self sufficiency. The water issue is a problem, but not nearly as big as you might think. The state and water districts regularly fund new technologies and invest in storage. It would suck for a while, but in the long run, freedom from federal system might actually speed up changes that need to be made anyway.
I mean it’s California. At that point just get a few neighboring states on board, take all the military hardware and shit and be like “Wanna go to war over it?”.
That’s the problem … if you are damned if you stay and damned if you leave … everyone starts weighing the options of either situation
The choices for staying become … stay and beholden to federal government that ties your hands, manipulates your economy and uses you for their benefit while never allowing you to do what your people want for themselves
or … secede and fight a political, economic and possibly even a military conflict to decide your own future
either options is terrible in the long run (if things continue as they are) but staying means things stay indefinitely terrible while seceding gives a higher chance of political autonomy.
If you’re going that far, why wouldn’t you want the other states? Just take over the whole government instead of trying to secede.
Civil war it is.