BBC article on “What if California Seceded?” (Montclair: racism, electricity)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by teddyearp

Who? Trump? Prove it.

Yo, Teddy ... an independent California’s potential, such as theoretical military, is reasonably on-topic, even though the thread is intended to highlight California’s critical function to the nation as remaining intact.

Much as I enjoy demonstrating Trump’s mental and emotional disorders and incompetencies - it’s entirely off-topic. A quick mention as an example of something that is otherwise part of topic is one thing. Launching an entirely new line of conversation untethered to the topic is another.

Thanks.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Mistermobile

$376 billion.

Which is less than it sends to the feds on average, most years.

Net loss goes to the US Treasury.

Thanks.

[Pyramidsurf]

I don't think anyone truly realizes just how much defense dollars goes into California. California would have an extremely difficult time forming a capable military without having to rely on the United States. Dollars is only one part of the puzzle. Acquisition, development, tactics, R&D, and supply chains all cost enormous amounts of money and cannot be built over night. Couple thoughts:

-R&D at California Universities - Owned by the U.S. Government
-Tactics - U.S. Government. Would likely have to pay for training and develop own tactics.
-Acquisition - Building a sustainable and cost effective acquisition model for an enormous amount of tech takes time and money
-Supply Chains - Also takes time and requires manufacturer buy in.

The question becomes why the United States would provide an enormous amount of defense dollars and operations to an independent nation.

Too many people think California's money can fix everything which is simply nonsense.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Pyramidsurf

I don't think anyone truly realizes just how much defense dollars goes into California. California would have an extremely difficult time forming a capable military without having to rely on the United States. Dollars is only one part of the puzzle. Acquisition, development, tactics, R&D, and supply chains all cost enormous amounts of money and cannot be built over night. Couple thoughts:

-R&D at California Universities - Owned by the U.S. Government
-Tactics - U.S. Government. Would likely have to pay for training and develop own tactics.
-Acquisition - Building a sustainable and cost effective acquisition model for an enormous amount of tech takes time and money
-Supply Chains - Also takes time and requires manufacturer buy in.

The question becomes why the United States would provide an enormous amount of defense dollars and operations to an independent nation.

Too many people think California's money can fix everything which is simply nonsense.

Lmao. Indeed. We already do. All around the world. Why? What a silly question!

That aside: how do the British, the Israelis, the Canadians, the Australians, the Swiss, the Swedish, the Brazilians, the Argentinians, Chileans, South Africans, the French ... et al ... all with smaller economies and most with smaller populations, do it?

Lots of people “truly realize how much defense dollars” goes to California. It’s not secret information.

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Speaking of “hahaha” ...

Um, Israel’s GDP is $376.13 (billion) with a population of under 8 million.

California’s GDP is $2.8 (ummmmm, trillion) with a population of near 40 million.

Summary: California can buy Israel’s military out of petty cash ...

Ignoring the point of the issue - the culture.

Israelis have a great military because every person must serve. They love their country, and are determined to protect it.

Californians detest the military, and would never tolerate being forced to serve.

Money isn't everything.

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

He is racist.

There's that claim again, with no proof.

Name ONE racist act he's committed. One.

I'll wait.

[waffleiron1968]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Which is less than it sends to the feds on average, most years.

Net loss goes to the US Treasury.

Thanks.

This one baffles me. How can anyone rational think CA would not win in purely $ in/out terms? CA sends an ocean of dollars to DC, and gets a stream back at best.

The hick states live off CA dole!

[Pyramidsurf]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Lmao. Indeed. We already do. All around the world. Why? What a silly question!

Not on the scale that California would require.

That aside: how do the British, the Israelis, the Canadians, the Australians, the Swiss, the Swedish, the Brazilians, the Argentinians, Chileans, South Africans, the French ... et al ... all with smaller economies and most with smaller populations, do it?

They had a significant head start and rely on treaties. Do you honestly believe California could flip a switch and a fully functional military complete with doctrine, supply chains, and equipment would appear?

People seem to think that because California has money that it solves all their problems which is quite honestly a ridiculous assumption.

Lots of people “truly realize how much defense dollars” goes to California. It’s not secret information.

How much do you think it is?

[Pyramidsurf]

From what I can understand in this thread, California could be "free" from the United States but would still require the United States to provide defense via treaties since they could not realistically stand alone. There is no way California could stand independently against other world super powers.

So what is the point? California can be free from the union but can't stand alone. Seems that California needs the U.S. as much as they don't want to admit it.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by waffleiron1968

This one baffles me. How can anyone rational think CA would not win in purely $ in/out terms? CA sends an ocean of dollars to DC, and gets a stream back at best.

The hick states live off CA dole!

CA gets 99% back. Look it up.