News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
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.
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 so the yokels can't do shit.
Much of the agricultural land would be fine. However the population centers in SoCal would have to make drastic cuts without the Colorado River.
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.
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.
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.
For one, because the way that the government is set up means that you would need the cooperation of at least 26 states to ensure control of the legislative and executive branches, and even then, the Supreme Court justices are lifetime appointments, so you'd have to wait a long time to get the judicial branch on board. So you'd have to wage a war of conquest to secure the entire country. For another, much of the country is a burden on California's economy. They're the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world on their own, and many of the states are dependent on their tax money and produce.
I think if you're seriously talking about seceding, the most practical/logical plan would be a coalition of like-minded states seceding to form their own nation or EU style group of nation-states. The most likely to consider it would probably be the west coast and the northern end of the east coast (New England specifically), which would be a logistical nightmare for everyone involved - both for the US having hostile nations on all sides as well as any seceding states trying to trade across a hostile country between them. Though aid from friendly countries would be easily available, as both coasts border Canada (and Mexico on the west) and have plenty of infrastructure for trade internationally.
There's not a large difference between that and a war for secession. Either way it's violence.
One is holding ground that you already own vs. taking ground by force. From a military standpoint, there's a massive difference.
Not that I disagree that it's violence either way, mind you. It's just a different scale and situation.
Civil war it is.
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
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?".