CA Secession Millitary Scenario

In this thread

If CA wanted to leave without permission:

1: Its not like it would be a surprise, something like that would be brewing for years if it happened.
2: We just might be able to BUY enough votes to let us out anyway.
3: The point of this post, Would the millitary really be able to turn on the state of CA. A major state like CA, determined to leave the union would be one hell of a nasty fight. Plenty of the millitary bases here just might choose to join CA, they live here too.

I tend to think that forcing the US millitary to commit to the measures needed to put down a popular secession would create a situation where many units would stall and or refuse to engage if they had any way to avoid it. After years and years of being taught to “do the right thing,” killing civillians who’s main crime would seem to be wanting to be left alone by the US government, would not be well recieved buy the troops.

Here’s a rough “how-to-do-it” draft on how to succeed from the union. :smiley: Militarily, I seriously wonder if there is a damn thing the feds could do about it if the majority of the Californians had the will to succeed. Not just California, but most rich states could reek havoc upon the union and truly succeed if that is what they really wanted to do. The state would lose out on quite a few things as well. All and all, I think the richer states would still come out ahead.

If a state was serious about going through with it, the first thing the US would try to do would be to impose economic sanctions including not paying fed and social security dollars to the state. If they did this, the governor in turn could impose his own economic sanctions with something as simple as convincing people in his state not to pay their federal income, social security taxes and any other taxes going to the federal government. That alone would cause hundreds of billions of dollars to stop flowing into the federal government. This would cause such a seriously economic crisis that it would be devastating.

Militarily, I don’t think the government could do a damn thing. Knowing how serious the situation would be for them, I’m sure they would threaten some military action. But what could they do? Threaten to kill citizens simply because they didn’t pay Uncle Sam this years taxes? Would soldiers be willing to do that? Would the feds threaten a nuclear retaliation? That wouldn’t work, once the governor kindly reminded the Feds, that they too, have a military, as well as nukes. So what’s the big dog going to do then? He’ll back off, just like the old cold war days with Russia.

After a few years of a state not paying any taxes to the federal government, maybe congress would have a change of venue on the succession issue.

JZ

I Don’t think the rest of the U.S would have a problem at all if California chose to secede. :smiley:

Those all in favor say yeah! Those that oppose, say nah! Damn, that was easier than I thought. By a vote of one (barring it wasn‘t a bad chad), California you and your earthquakes have now successfully succeeded from the union.

JZ

I’ll buy the champagne.

You would when your prices for food and electronics skyrocket from the protection tarrifs against CA products.

No more Martinelli’s Sparkling Apple Cider for you! :eek:

The reason California cannot secede from the Union can be summed up in one word: water. California is dependent on the entire West to supply it with water. No water, no economy.

Water’s definitely an issue, but it will never come to that. Having lived there for 12 years (upon a time) I’d be truly SHOCKED if they could all agree on it. Californians can’t agree on much of anything.

Now, splitting into North and South California… THAT I can see happening.

I don’t see NorCal & SoCal splitting. SoCal needs the water from the north and NorCal enjoys all the tax revenue generated in SoCal.

Also, such a measure would have to go through Congress. Can anytone think of any reasons Congress would accept or reject the idea (other than it’s the will of the People of California)?

Here’s one reason Congress might oppose it: The “whacko” Californian’s would gain two more senators.

:confused:
If the government witholds aid, paid for by taxes, and the governor counterattacks by withholding taxes, wouldn’t the two cancel each other out? I realize the government would lose some on the exchange, because there’s probably a net loss in dollars as it goes through channels, but I don’t think that would make that much of a difference in the long run.

More important would be the loss of food grown by the state. In junior high (back in the 70’s), my social studies teacher said that if California seceded, it’d be the fifth largest country as far as agriculture was concerned.

Isn’t California also highly dependent on it’s neighbors for power?

Yep.

John Zahn, I think you’re being naive. The federal government could easily stomp California into the ground if they attempted to leave the union without ‘permission’. Even if they chose not to an economic boycott could entail a cessation of aid, the embargo of ports, the seizure of assets, and more.

Even if the citizens of the Bear Flag Republic chose to ‘withhold taxes’ it’s not the citizens who pay the taxes. The corporations for which they work do the actual paying. If say, the California branch of Transamerica suddenly ceased collected federal taxes for it’s employees in California I can safely say you’d stop seeing federal contracts awarded to Transamerica and you’d see their assets seized by the federal government pretty damn quick.

Well, of course, the state of California was going to stop paying their federal dollars anyway, after all that’s a part of succession, but by having the US make the first economic threats, it sort of makes them out as the bully. :slight_smile:

I don’t think it cancels out each other. Our Federal government like the rest the world over are famous for not being able to manage their financial budgets. The states on the other hand are required to balance them. The feds would inherit the massive deficit that they created consisting of trillions of dollars. Losing a rich state like CA, would be a disaster for them, but not for California. California on the other hand, having to balance its state budget like all states in the U.S…, already has its financial house in order here. They could also take the hundreds of billions that it was paying the Feds, and use it to build their infrastructure how they seen fit. They wouldn’t need the federal government for any earthquake or emergency aid. Nor would California no longer be having to support this 300-400 billion dollar military anymore; nor would it have the financial burden of America giving every damn nation it sees fit, billions of dollars of handouts for doing the US political favors. California is a state still rich in natural resources. They would do just fine without the US. Can the U.S. say the same without them?

JZ

California is not required to balance its budget, as evidenced by its $34.8 billion deficit, larger than the entire budget of most U.S. states.
(Actual dollar amount is debateable).

California is running a ~$35,000,000,000 deficit, and is far from having “its financial house in order…”. And the outlook doesn’t look too good. Tech has/is leaving California. And when the military leaves CA, how many billions of dollars will they lose?

California tried to define its own energy policy, and the lights went out. It would be an intersting study to see what else they could screw up.

The only way to fix it is to flush it all away.
Learn to swim, I’ll see you down in Arizona bay.

:smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

Puh-leeze.

Doubt it.

This ain’t 1861. Those bases aren’t comprised of the 1st Californian Rifles, and the 2nd Californian Grenadiers. Those are mostly federal troops, baby! I suspect an overwhelming majority of those troops are originally from the loyal 49. You don’t have to wonder too much about what those straight shooters from Tennessee and Texas would think about California. They might want to see it go, but when the orders came down, I think we know what they would do. Those would be the first troops to surround the state legislature and the governor’s mansion.

The last time I remember federal troops showing up with rifles staring down an armed state guard unit, it all ended quite peacefully as the state guard was nationalized by LBJ, and guardsman very smartly yielded to the federal troops. (Mississippi, wasn’t it?) And that poor student got to go to school.

Who says they’d be killing civilians? Will the Californians be violating the Geneva convention and fighting without uniforms or insignia?

I wouldn’t underestimate the US military’s motivation to fight. Hell, they even fired on and killed their own veterans under MacArthur in DC in 1932.

Oh, I don’t know. The Canadian federal government has been running surpluses for quite some time now. :slight_smile:

Oh brother! Texans used to talk this way, and some still do. It’s fun over a beer, but let’s be real for a second.

Are you assuming Califorinia has NOT seceded at this point? I don’t see the feds making an aggressive first move to single out a state and give the state the moral high ground. That’s outrageous.

:rolleyes:

How about rounding them up and putting them in jail? Resisting arrest? OK, then shoot 'em. But someone else already pointed out there are other ways to get that money…a lot of people would still go to jail, and be shot if necessary, though.

Oh, I see, you are going for humor here. I’m sorry. I thought you were being serious.

Ha, ha! I"d love to see the California Guard try to get control of US nukes. That would in fact be the death knell for California. Yeah, Bush is going to stand by and let the US gain a hostile nuclear neighbor.

Thanks for the laughs. That was great!