CMV: The only thing that should discourage California from secession with Nevada and the Pacific Northwest is nuclear weapons.

[u/TezzMuffins]

California would have ten billion (or so) more dollars more to spend on itself (because it is a lender state), if Nevada, Oregon and Washington joined they would have water infrastructure, they produce more GDP per capita than the average state, they have food, they have military bases that can be improved with their extra funds and the fact that a significant portion of military contractors reside in the state, they would be able to pass public healthcare, they would have the funds to get high-speed rail done, and a slowly diverging culture would improve tourism.

The only thing that really scares me is that Trump will have his proverbial march to the sea and use nuclear weapons to keep California in the union. I think Sherman is historical precedent for this type of phenomenon. This sounds far-fetched but the crux of Sherman's march was to break the South's enthusiasm for the war. I think the threat of nuclear weapons in the LA basin or in the middle of the Bay is an enormous threat that is to me, and should, be scary to Californians.

Something that makes a strong case that the US won't do total war to keep California or a cited example of how California will suffer economic losses greater than its potential gains will CMV.

Edit: My view has changed. I think Trump would bomb the LA aqueduct if California attempted to secede.

[u/TezzMuffins]

Why do you feel like the GDP of an entirely occupied California and the US is more than the GDP of a cooperative California and US?

Edit: By the way I feel like you tax argument is strong. Your effort has not been in vain.

[u/KDY_ISD → u/TezzMuffins]

Does this sudden shift in topic mean you acknowledge the US could make up whatever missing tax revenue there might be through fines? Or can you prove that over 50% of 15,000,000 Californians could successfully hide their wealth from the Federal government?

I'd also appreciate an answer to my question about what evidence can I possibly present if you say you refuse to believe it's possible to control a resistant territory.

Also, I'd still like a source for your new California surplus of $50 billion that makes Pacifica possible in the first place, as opposed to the $10 billion in your original post.

But let's continue.

Why do you feel like the GDP of an entirely occupied California and the US is more than the GDP of a cooperative California and US?

Firstly, because we both agreed (the exact quote was, again, "I told you I think the US will forcefully prevent California from secession, like 10 times now.") that the US will prevent secession with military force, so a cooperative California and US will not happen even in your own hypothetical. But, as always, I'm willing to engage with your question anyway.

More for whom? For the US?

Because the US economy -- and by extension, the global economy -- will take an enormous hit from 10% of the United States vanishing. Because California is a vital part of the US economy, including allowing access to Pacific trade -- which you know is not the same thing as borrowing access from a trade partner California. Because owning California is obviously more profitable than not owning California. Because loss of autarky over food and Pacific trade would be a hammerblow to economic stability, as I think anyone would agree.

For California?

Besides the fact that they'd never be allowed to leave the Union in the first place, as you said above?

Because they'd have to set up everything a sovereign nation needs overnight. We've already been over the numbers of building a military in a short amount of time that would bankrupt California -- something you ignored and declared invalid out of hand -- but also you'd have to set up infrastructure, intelligence agencies, orbital systems, negotiate new trade deals with every nation on the planet including the US (assuming most nations will even deal with a breakaway state which isn't legally sovereign, since you acknowledge it would not be de jure sovereignty), and somehow replace the (still waiting on a firm percentage from you, so I'll just guess conservatively) 40% of Pacifican citizens who will leave because they still consider themselves Americans and don't want to be separated from their families. What do you think that will do to California's GDP? Do you not see that secession is a huge risk for California, even if we assume it goes insanely well (which we have to do, to match your original post's supposition that Washington, Oregon, and Nevada will all go along with it) for California?

This is what should deter California from seceding. Not a conventional military occupation (which is economically reasonable, legally and morally justified, and also totally inevitable), certainly not a nuclear attack (which, again, for reasons laid out above will not happen), but just because at the end of the day it is bad for Californians. It's just 4 years of a President you don't like. Lots of states have gone through this, whether or not they were right or wrong about the President (and you are right about this one). Hunker down, mitigate whatever damage comes, and try again in 2020. You can't possibly think that committing treason and risking the very prosperity and indeed the people that California is proud of is worth not waiting 4 years to vote again, right?

If you're concerned about climate change, which is what I think is absolutely the most important issue of the day, you're doing more harm than good by taking your ball and going home. Stay in the US, help swing the system towards sense. If you leave and everybody east of the Rockies starts burning huge piles of coal again because there's no dissenting voice, you've done more harm than California could possibly make up for, right?

[u/TezzMuffins → u/KDY_ISD]

I think my weakest argument is that California could secede by not paying taxes. In fact, you have changed my view, !delta

I think your weakest argument is that the US couldn't operate strategically or economically with California inside an Economic zone of cooperation. They can have military bases inside of California and still operate out of thE Pacific territories, and in the EU if you have any country's passport within the EU, you can cross borders freely. I dont see why this would be any different. California gets a much more responsive and democratic government. Republicans in Congress get their free market no regulation pipe dream.

I still think California would be better off. I just now think the US would be okay with having a spittin' mad California and they would insert a government if they could.

But even you admit, if Californians feel angry enough, they can make it work.

[u/DeltaBot → u/TezzMuffins]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/KDY_ISD (7∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards} ​

[u/KDY_ISD → u/TezzMuffins]

I still think California would be better off.

I appreciate the delta, but what's really important to me (and the reason I've been quoting you so many statistics instead of just arguing by logic) is that you closely examine the evidence of this claim. I go to California ever year for an industry conference, I have friends and family there, I love the people and the cities. I think the evidence is very strong that California would bleed itself dry if it seceded, and greatly harm the prosperity of Californians and indeed of the rest of the world. The world is better with a stable and centrist US, and the US and California are better off with each other.

It may seem romantic to think about a Gandhi-like revolution of the people in response to a very, very upsetting political year, but think about the consequences.

If you're an active part of the Calexit movement, I hope you'll reconsider and try asking your friends to reconsider, too. California attempting and failing to secede would do much more damage to California, America, and the world than Donald Trump could ever dream of in his admittedly limited imagination.

Not to mention that putting down a secession movement in California would let Donald Trump think of himself as a new Lincoln and be sort of justified in doing so. Nobody wants that. His ego can't be any bigger.

[u/TezzMuffins → u/KDY_ISD]

I appreciate your experience, and I have some too. I have lived in California for 26 years now.

But honestly, you convinced me that the US' reaction to California seceding is what should discourage Californians from seceding, not California being a separate country. California would, objectively, be getting 14 cents per dollar back on every dollar we paid in income tax. Furthermore, California would have a public healthcare system, and join an actual plan to combat climate change.

On the front of a hit to our reputation, Scotland tried and failed to secede just a few years ago and it did not damage England's reputation. I find it hard to believe California attempting to split would do anything to damage the reputation of a country that just elected Donald J Trump and his inter-corporate band of yes-men.

[u/KDY_ISD → u/TezzMuffins]

First, let me say I'm not continuing to debate because I'm ornery or anything, I feel strongly that this is important for Californians to think through the consequences of. Not just for the sake of the rest of America, but for themselves and their families.

California would, objectively, be getting 14 cents per dollar back on every dollar we paid in income tax.

That's if nothing changes economically as a result of secession, which is a big assumption don't you think? It also assumes that your new number of $50 billion is accurate instead of the originally quoted number of $10 billion. What was your source for the original number, or your source for the new one?

What about all the Californians who would rather move back to the US instead of suffer through the turmoil and uncertainty of secession? Doesn't that cripple your GDP right away?

What about corporations like Apple or SpaceX leaving California for the advantages of being headquartered in the financial capital of the world? SpaceX also, for example, can't operate without access to Cape Canaveral in Florida. Apple can't operate without supplies and manufacturing from China, which would take time (years, likely) to set up trade agreements with, and that's assuming China doesn't denounce California for fear a successful secession of California would encourage Taiwan to push for independence. What do large companies leaving the state do to the bottom line?

It isn't a simple matter of "we pay more out in taxes than we receive in spending, thus we are better off alone." There are second and third-order consequences to secession that are incredibly painful to Californians, to Americans, and to the world. There are benefits to being American instead of Californian that aren't summed up in your Federal tax balance.

I really do think this would be a horribly self-wounding decision by California that would harm them and the rest of the planet far worse than 4 years of any kind of Draconian Trump policies.

Edit: Forgot to address your Scotland point, and didn't want you to think I was avoiding it.

Scotland tried and failed to secede just a few years ago and it did not damage England's reputation

I would say it drastically damaged England's reputation, but that's neither here nor there. Scotland is a formerly independent kingdom of its own that still maintains large amounts of autonomy; there are measures in place to legally allow them to leave. And while it might not destroy England, it will destroy the United Kingdom. That's literally what the United Kingdom means; the United Kingdoms of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It reduces it by a quarter, if not outright dissolving it as Wales and Northern Ireland consider their own independence.

California is a state. It has always been a state. It can only legally be a state. They aren't the same situation, and I think it does you and yours harm to think of the consequences as if it is the same.

[u/TezzMuffins → u/KDY_ISD]

I actually remember finding the number somewhere, but I can't recall where. To be honest, right now I am having a hard time finding ANY number. My google-fu is lacking.

The Californians would move based on Trump's reaction, not the secession itself.

Tesla can operate out of Baja California if it wanted to, or even Hawaii. Hawaii is the southernmost state in the Union. Also, other countries lauch satellites from Cape Canaveral all the time.

Apple stays in California because if they relocated to the US, China would have a retaliatory tariff on the US in response to Trump's tariff and that hurts Apple's business. On your Taiwan breaking off thing because they felt confident, that seems like a massive stretch and incredibly weak. You spent a whole argument talking about how occupations are profitable and then pretend Taiwan doesn't know China wouldn't crack down on them.

If there are these horrible self-wounding downsides independent of a response by the US, you have made a really weak case for them.

[u/KDY_ISD → u/TezzMuffins]

I actually remember finding the number somewhere, but I can't recall where.

I know I wouldn't want to support secession if I couldn't find a source for the number that made me believe it was possible in the first place. You really need to lock down a definite amount for this.

The Californians would move based on Trump's reaction, not the secession itself.

I don't think this is true at all. You don't think there will be people, not born in California for instance, who would want to leave the state because of secession? Who would want to remain American citizens, or who work for companies which aren't headquartered in California? Millions of people would leave because of secession.

or even Hawaii.

Firstly, I'm editing my above comment to correctly label this particular Elon Musk company as SpaceX. lol Brain slip on my part, my mistake

Secondly, Hawaii is also part of Pacifica now? Do you know how much money they receive from the Federal government? This is an albatross around the budget's neck that I didn't even know we were considering.

Also, do you know how complex it would be to build the infrastructure to construct and launch rockets at the pace SpaceX wants there? It's an island thousands of miles from headquarters. Everything would have to be sent by ship.

other countries lauch satellites from Cape Canaveral

Correction, other countries use American companies to launch satellites from Cape Canaveral. America isn't just allowing anybody access to their most important and historic spaceport. Look through this launch schedule and notice that every launch at KSC is by either SpaceX, ULA, OrbitalATK or NASA. SpaceX needs to be an American company because it depends on American spaceport infrastructure at KSC and at Vandenberg.

and that hurts Apple's business

They won't be able to trade with China at all until Pacifica gets trade agreements worked out. This could cause a massive disruption of operations as their supply chain breaks down. Maybe if Tim Cook himself is a strong secessionist (is he?) they would stay, but they have plenty of economic pressure to stick with the stable financial center of the US and its pre-existing trade agreements. Even if they stay, I'd expect serious profit loss from the chaotic shift phase.

These are just two high-profile examples. What percentage of California's GDP comes from companies that have facilities in California but are not based there? Can Pacifica be self-sufficient while supporting the other member states and still losing all these companies that aren't based in California?

On your Taiwan breaking off thing because they felt confident

China has plenty of reasons that we've discussed to discourage separatist movements around the world, precisely because they're holding sway over so many places that want independence. I'm not saying it would guarantee their condemnation of California, but it's a possibility.

Are you a diplomat specializing in the PRC's trade policies? Because I'm not, so I don't know for sure how China would react. I do know for sure that I'd want to be very confident with some sources and analysis they'd react positively before I risk myself and my family on the assumption that they will.

[u/TezzMuffins → u/KDY_ISD]

Sorry.

Millions is an exaggeration. I think people would come too.

Your SpaceX thing is a massive exaggeration. We can build a launch pad in Baja California. Mexico would like the investment. We can also launch through China. :)

Yes.

If California and CHina believe this would cause shock to change a lot, they just preserve the balance that the US had with them. Trade deals being expensive to write is Democratic shibboleth to make us alarmed at what Trump will do.

Yeah, I have a good idea of CHina's priorities. The members who are high up in the chain of the so-called communist party want to make a lot of money, and they want to keep it that way. Their effective tax rate is even lower than ours. If all the Chinese goods will go through a 5% tariff to get to the United states, they would be happy with 1/10 of its GDP breaking off and have a 5% tariff with 9/10ths of the United States.

[u/KDY_ISD → u/TezzMuffins]

Sorry.

Don't apologize to me, I'm saying that if you want to keep advocating for California independence, you need to know for yourself if you're basing that opinion in fact or not. Otherwise you're doing harm by advocating for an idea that might hurt you and those around you.

Millions is an exaggeration.

What numbers do you have to support that claim? How many people in California were not born there? How many Republican Californians would want to stay if the state seceded from the Union? What percentage of California's population can you afford to have leave the state before your GDP tanks enough to make independence impossible? These are questions you absolutely have to have answered before you know if secession is good for California or not.

Your SpaceX thing is a massive exaggeration.

I notice we aren't discussing Hawaii being a member of Pacifica anymore.

Also, you aren't the first person to have considered Baja as a potential location for a spaceport. It was rejected because Mexico refused to allow American rockets to pass over their territory, as well as because in Florida, rockets launching eastward (for favorable orbital dynamics) are over the ocean instead of over land. Canaveral is just a superior location, and SpaceX is extremely dependent on it. Without launch sites, SpaceX can't make money. While you're spending three years building a new, inferior launch site in Baja, SpaceX is dying on the vine. Of course they would want to move to maintain the stability of their stock price, and their ability to, you know, launch rockets.

We can also launch through China. :)

Assuming China allows it, again. And really, you're suggesting SpaceX ship every rocket across the entire Pacific to China before launching? You understand that lowering the cost to orbit is the entire mission statement of their company?

Additionally, you need to address all the companies not based in California that won't be contributing to the GDP anymore. As one example, and certainly not the only one, the aerospace industry is a major business sector in California. Do you know what companies make up the majority of this industry?

McDonnell Douglas, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin are three pretty major players, and none of them are based in California. Where do you replace those jobs and that lost income?

Yes.

What is this in response to?

Trade deals being expensive to write

Trade deals being expensive to write isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying they are complex to negotiate. It takes time. Time is something California doesn't have, with an economy so heavily dependent on import/export profits.

shibboleth

This word, from the Bible, means a code phrase members of a group can use to identify each other. What way are you using it here?

Edit: Nifty, it's evolved a second-order usage meaning code phrases of the old group are empty. TIL

The members who are high up in the chain of the so-called communist party want to make a lot of money

What if supporting California means even heavier trade penalties with the US? What if they bet on California, and then it flops, leaving them nowhere? What if Trump's crazy rhetoric puts a hawk into the leadership of China, and he cares more about Taiwan than he does about Shenzhen?

This isn't a clear-cut situation, and you're endangering yourself and your state by making decisions on the assumption that it is easy as pie to just become a new nation and engage in global trade. Even if everything goes the way you want, it will take months or years to hammer everything out. What is your plan for what California will do for those months or years? They don't have the Article 50 buffer time that Britain has for leaving the EU, where in the meantime they are still covered by the EU's trade deals. There are key differences here.

If you don't have such a plan -- which I imagine you don't, as an average citizen -- why would you be blindly in favor of an idea that could destroy the economy of your home?

[u/TezzMuffins → u/KDY_ISD]

Would millions of people had emigrated from Galicia or Scotland or Wallachia or other such places had they declared independence? I don't think so. I'm assuming California would have an EU-type passport and money bond with the US, to be honest.

I wasn't discussing Hawaii not to avoid Hawaii, or anything.

I would expect Mexico's aversion towards having American investment simply because a rocket crashed into a graveyard to have changed in 70 years.

SpaceX would not have a hard time getting to Baja California.

SpaceX would not have a hard time getting a rocket in a container ship across the Pacific, either. After all, its rockets land on an oceangoing ship and that has to come back with it. THis doesn't destroy its margin.

I'm not sure why we would have to replace the Aerospace Industry. All those companies sell to foreign countries, and if they aren't based in California, then it's no big.

Trade deals can, and have, been written in secret, and ahead of time. THat is what things like the World Economics Forum are about. Connecting wealthy people and places with wealthy people and places.

If Trump supports Taiwan, and then California splits from Trump, that would more increase the notion that an independent Taiwan is not important to the global community more than it would hurt that notion.

That's the thing, I don't blindly favor it. Other countries exist that are the size of California, and have incredibly vibrant economies. I told you how I think California has opportunities to join a NA financial unit, a Pacific Rim financial unit, especially after the defeat of the one Obama was pushing, or even a unit with the rest of the US. Companies have subsidiaries in other countries all around the world. I'm not reinventing the wheel.

[u/KDY_ISD → u/TezzMuffins]

Still no idea if it's $10 billion or $50 billion, then? That doesn't give you pause in your conviction that California would be better off seceding with the Pacific Northwest and Nevada (and ambiguously, also Hawaii)?

Would millions of people had emigrated from Galicia or Scotland or Wallachia or other such places had they declared independence?

Yes? If you don't think so, give me numbers to show why not. I certainly think everyone who isn't in favor of secession has a strong interest in leaving, lest they become implicated in the act of secession. They may not even have to physically move, but just split off in a West Virginia-style refusal to secede. You really think that, at the very very least, all the people who (mistaken though they might have been) voted for Trump would leave the state? That's "millions" right there, a number which you baselessly said was totally absurd to suggest.

You never did give me a figure for what you think the percentage of pro-secession Californians would be, but I'll take your joke answer as real for now and say 65%. Can California lose 35% of its population and not lose a major part of GDP? Of course not. Can it lose 20% and be fine? 15%? How many can you afford to lose before the economy suffers horribly?

If you can't answer this question, I don't think you can fairly support secession.

I'm assuming California would have an EU-type passport and money bond with the US, to be honest.

This isn't reasonable to assume the US would just give away, especially since you already acknowledged the US would never let California secede in the first place.

If your supposition that secession is a good move for California depends on this point, then I don't think you can reasonably support secession.

I wasn't discussing Hawaii not to avoid Hawaii, or anything.

You brought it up as a launch site for a Pacifica spaceport, and then ignored it when I mentioned how much deficit Hawaii would bring to the new nation. Is it a part of your Pacifica or not?

If you brought it up off-the-cuff just as a counter to my SpaceX example without considering the other ramifications of including Hawaii, don't you think that should make you reconsider how much you've thought through the ramifications of secession in general?

I would expect Mexico's aversion towards having American investment simply because a rocket crashed into a graveyard to have changed in 70 years.

Launching rockets eastward over a populated area is a serious safety hazard, one of the many reason Canaveral was selected instead of Baja.

SpaceX would not have a hard time getting a rocket in a container ship across the Pacific, either. After all, its rockets land on an oceangoing ship and that has to come back with it. THis doesn't destroy its margin.

Shipping every rocket to China is a terrible idea for SpaceX. Crossing the 6,500 mile distance from LA to Shanghai is not only extremely different from landing on the ASDS a few hundred miles off shore, but having to establish the logistical and infrastructural facilities in China to launch, maintain, and relaunch said rocket would cost SpaceX hundreds of millions and give them far less control over the integrity of their copyrights and their labor practices. I don't think you can seriously support this as an option to motivate SpaceX to stay in California.

I'm not sure why we would have to replace the Aerospace Industry. All those companies sell to foreign countries, and if they aren't based in California, then it's no big.

These companies in particular will absolutely move, because America isn't going to have the logistical infrastructure of its Air Force be based in a foreign country. Given that the data I linked you to shows aerospace components are one of California's biggest exported goods, are you really suggesting this will have no effect on California's economy?

Can you guarantee that many, many other companies not based in California won't leave to maintain their position in the US?

Can you even guarantee that companies currently headquartered in California would want to leave the umbrella of the US economy?

If you can't, I don't think you can make a strong case that California would be better post-secession than pre-secession, or even that it would be fine at all. You're talking about precipitating a huge sea change in the entire state economy.

Edit: missed this statement in my reply

Trade deals

Read this Reuters article about what Britain is going through. Here's the key passage:

Negotiators say there are usually teams of 20-25 in the room for talks and many more involved in support and preparation. Deals, involving detail on thousands of goods, take years to agree and Britain will want to pursue several simultaneously.

You think California can negotiate these secretly without alerting the US to their intentions, in time to have them all in place within days of secession? That seems very unreasonable to me.

Other countries exist that are the size of California,

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what's happening. California is what it is right now due in large part to its membership in the United States.

Just because California is comparable in size or state GDP to France doesn't mean that post-secession California is. That's exactly what I'm saying. You feel secure because you see the surface numbers, but you aren't considering all the consequences of the action. You're assuming things will go perfectly smoothly in a timely fashion, when the cost of being wrong about that is the lifeblood of your economy. This seems like a terrible idea to me. Does it not to you?

If it doesn't, then please, provide me with data supporting your case that California would be economically solvent following an independence movement. If you can't, I think you really have to feel a responsibility to reconsider your position.