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.
You cannot get water from southern Oregon into California by any practical manner. Same as the person you replied to, the Central Valley and coastal regions are inaccessible except from the Sierra Nevada or Colorado River.
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.
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?
Water is more of an issue than the military. The US relies heavily on California for food so that would be a bargaining chip.
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.
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.
You cannot get water from southern Oregon into California by any practical manner. Same as the person you replied to, the Central Valley and coastal regions are inaccessible except from the Sierra Nevada or Colorado River.
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.
Much of the agricultural land would be fine. However the population centers in SoCal would have to make drastic cuts without the Colorado River.
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.