Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vendayn]

I think I might have figured out how California (as its own nation) could support other states, but still get its own supplies. Granted, maybe it wouldn't work out. But my friend said it could be a possibility.

California would buy a lot of goods/supplies from other states that it can't get in California (like water). California is a pretty good economic state, so they'd still "spread" the wealth by importing goods from elsewhere. But it would still be independent and have a good economy.

Would that work at all? Where california buys imported supplies, which then other states could make use of the money (so they wouldn't be left out in the cold).

Seems like that might solve that issue a bit. Not sure.

[wierd]

No. Fires. More frequent, more intense due to climate change.

No federal relief funds when it happens.

[Culise]

And California WAS part of Mexico, so, they probably still have the 'former territory' causus belli.

Why didn't Mexico take advantage of the situation during the Civil War and try to take back Texas though?

Texas had the backing of the other Confederate states, and a large, veteran military.

Saw this earlier.  In addition to the whole Confederacy thing, there was the whole minor issue of a massive invasion of Mexico by the Second French Empire from 1861 to 1867, initially supported by both the British and Spanish as well before they realized the French intended to seize the whole shebang and quietly withdrew to adopt a "wait and see" attitude.  You know, nothing too big. 

[Flying Dice]

For US, great lakes.

Has derelict but rebootable heavy infrastructure, farmland, and fresh water.

I'm tempted to say "pick any two"...

It's cute to assume that those lakes are still potable, too. Full of plastic granules that kill fish and apparently make it through filtering.

[wierd]

Still useful industrially, and navigable for international commerce.

Has other, local sources of fresh water.

(Marshy and wet due to local unique weather. Aka, lake effect rain and snow. Not increasingly arid desert, like Cali.)

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

For US, great lakes.

Has derelict but rebootable heavy infrastructure, farmland, and fresh water.

How would other areas rank?

[wierd]

Central northwest has current heavy industry in wash and ore. Rolling cattle ranches. Southern parts not habitable without heavy investment, but in total, possible.

Central states, not enough infrastructure. Extreme seasonal weather variation, prone to drought, contaminated water sheds due to oil production. Not good prospect. 

Texas and big-easy states: habitable, but not at first world levels.

East coast: insufficient farmland to urban center ratio. Riots and violence will ensue. Likely plagues from unburrued bodies. Bad.

[smjjames]

For US, great lakes.

Has derelict but rebootable heavy infrastructure, farmland, and fresh water.

How would other areas rank?

In terms of self sufficiency? Most of the farming midwest would be fine as far as food goes, but.... farming is pretty much all they've got. States can afford to specialize their economies with no risk, nations can't with absolutely no risk.

Unless you're a city-state like Singapore maybe. edoot: wrong city.

Alaska could actually go it's own just fine much of it's food is gained from fishing, and has oil and other resources to trade with, except that it'd be immediately at risk of being annexed by Russia.

[Thebtathtak]

Because I appreciate hypothetical situations, and this is a doozie.   What would California export?  It is established that they would require imported power, water, and food, or at least that is what they seem to do currently.  Would ANY current US company 'move' and 'tax' there?  What would that do to employment?   How would all of the area that is federal land be handled, would California be required to pay for those lands or would they gift them to or never take them from the US?  If current US fed aid stopped flowing into the state, and they still wanted to run the state on deficit spending, would they sell 'treasury' bonds?  More importantly from the perspective of this forum, would they still be upset with other US states that chop down trees?  Would they export metals again, would the progressives allow for mineral extraction to prevent mass starvation?  Would the state turn into a socialist utopia, and would that new state gobble up all of the economically viable companies ala Venezuela's nationalization?  Would the current population of the state be willing to do the work that they are currently not doing in order to support the new nation?

All I can say for sure is interesting.[/color] 

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Oh geez, no, no way. As a former Californian dragged away by my parents at a young age, I feel you Cali, but that is not how you solve this, even ignoring all of the tactical and logistic nightmares.

Do you want a fucking Brexit 2.0?

[smjjames]

It's just the initial chest beating, screaming, and branch throwing as we liberals get over this.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

RAEG, RAEG AGAINST THE DYING OF THE RIGHT LEFT

except we aren't dead

time to get back to work

[Blaze]

I say yes, but only because I think city-states are cool.

[smjjames]

No, a city-state would be like San Fransisco, it's suburbs, maybe some other nearby cities, and the surrounding lands that would support them, not all of California.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

And an independent nation of Cali would be a dead, invaded, or blown-up nation. So not good.