No, actually the extent of the military is something that will be voted on.
I would prefer something along the lines of the Coast Guard. Something that has a purpose other than practicing for war. Forget the need to project our power beyond the horizon with aircraft carriers and expensive jets. But that’s my opinion.
I didn’t catch that, but it’s a very good point. Earlier he was arguing that California wouldn’t need to spend money on wasteful military ventures, now he’s wanting to build and maintain a two-ocean Navy (CA would need Pacific since that’s where the coast is, NATO would require Atlantic), ground forces to deploy to a European war, and the force projection capability to maintain them there. Also, he earlier said that he expected Russia to support the Calexit movement, but I doubt that Russia is going to rush to support a country that wants to immediately join an anti-Russian alliance.
This whole concept gets more an more incoherent as more pages get added. CA isn’t going to need a military because they’re peaceful traders, but they’re going to join NATO which requires being prepared to send ground forces against Russia. CA is leaving because they don’t like paying so much US tax, but they’re also going to keep US citizenship even though US citizens owe income tax regardless of what country they’re in. The secession from the US will be completely peaceful and will not involve seizing Federal property, but also somehow the 46% of California that the Federal government owns will not be an issue. If I felt more energetic I’d quote mine a bunch of these and pair them off.
So you’re going to have a military that doesn’t practice for war, doesn’t use aircraft carriers or expensive jets, and doesn’t need to project power, but are also going to join an alliance that requires you to fight in the Atlantic Ocean and project ground and air power into Europe, both of which require not just going ‘beyond the horizon’ but crossing North America, then the Atlantic ocean?
I don’t bother to refresh the thread every few minutes, and I responded to that post too. You still want both to be a part of an alliance that requires you to project force into Europe, and want to avoid the expense of force projection.
And we disagree. Cascadia Independence, Hawaii and Nevada are all working on the same thing. I would honestly expect that any success with the California will create other independence requests.
The damage Trump will do in 4 years (points at SCOTUS justice nominations as an example) is beyond repair for at least a generation.
See, this is where you go off the track again. I never said I wanted to be a member of NATO, I said CA would be when it spawned. At least, until we declined membership.
CA is not in any danger of being attacked by a foreign power. CA is in danger of lone terrorist attacks and shooting events etc. You don’t need submarines to protect against that, and B-52s are just an overstatement when dealing with school shooters.
My vote would be NO to NATO. No to capital military assets, (beyond jeeps, etc) and No to a standing army. Not necessary. A service similar to the Coast Guard would be all that was needed.
Again, CA does not need defending. It won’t be invaded. There are 38 million people and probably 50 million guns in CA. The friggen world knows about the 2ND and Americans. There will never be an invasion.
Again, not being in NATO would be awesome. I hope you’re right about that. I also hope CA doesn’t inherit the enemies of the US, maybe not being in NATO would prevent that.
No need to hope. That’s the reality of the situation: If CA achieved independence, they would not be part of NATO. No need to send representatives to meetings or anything, you’d be out.
But the lawyers at the California National party told you it was a fact California would be part of NATO. If you hope they’re wrong about that, they would also likely be wrong about California automatically being part of all those trade agreements.