California renounce USA?

[ZenOps]

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...htmlstory.html

"Calexit" movement gaining popularity again. Arguably much stronger than when Quebec wanted to leave Canada.

Not to be confused with "New California" which is simply breaking the state into two separate economic entities, but still part of the USA.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[rage2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I was thinking about this a few weeks ago... could they really separate? I mean how many nukes and other military resources are in California, could the US really tolerate them separating and then having control over such weapons?

The military would be disbanded with all nuclear weapons dismantled because California believes in love and peace. Nobody would ever attack them because flower power.

[RedDawn]

The whole calexit campaign was started and pushed by Russia. Same tired bullshit they tried a year ago:

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41853131

[95EagleAWD]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I was thinking about this a few weeks ago... could they really separate? I mean how many nukes and other military resources are in California, could the US really tolerate them separating and then having control over such weapons?

I mean if Quebec left Canada, all we'd really be concerned with is losing the title of longest highway, and of course our maple syrup reserves. California is a totally different animal.

Don’t think there are any nukes in California. The missile sub fleet is in Washington, and the surface fleet that is based in San Diego no longer carriies nuclear weapons. There’s no strategic Air Force bases (heavy bombers) in California, except Edwards, and that’s a test facility. There might be tactical fighter squadrons in California that have nukes, but I doubt it.

That said, they have a few carriers based there, and that would be an issue.

Ironically, if Quebec separates from Canada, we’d be losing an Air Force base with our Hornets (which may or may not still be nuclear capable, I can’t remember if we took the capability to drop nukes out of them) and we’d have to really toughen up control of the Saint Lawrence seaway. It would be a huge issue if Quebec actually separated.

[TomcoPDR]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The military would be disbanded with all nuclear weapons dismantled because California believes in love and peace. Nobody would ever attack them because flower power.

Every time someone says California all I can think of is this.

[bjstare]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Don’t think there are any nukes in California. The missile sub fleet is in Washington, and the surface fleet that is based in San Diego no longer carriies nuclear weapons. There’s no strategic Air Force bases (heavy bombers) in California, except Edwards, and that’s a test facility. There might be tactical fighter squadrons in California that have nukes, but I doubt it.

That said, they have a few carriers based there, and that would be an issue.

Ironically, if Quebec separates from Canada, we’d be losing an Air Force base with our Hornets (which may or may not still be nuclear capable, I can’t remember if we took the capability to drop nukes out of them) and we’d have to really toughen up control of the Saint Lawrence seaway. It would be a huge issue if Quebec actually separated.

We could probably fund a 2nd military if we discontinued transfer payments to those schmucks. It'd all work out.

[ZenOps]

I'm pretty sure the nukes would stay with the 49 states. "Leaving" would be just that, they would have to leave some things behind.

In this case, the 49 states "stay" so they get all the "kids" or nukes as it may be.

Now as for Hollywood, which side gets Fabio and which side gets Ahrnold? That is anyones guess.

[95EagleAWD]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm pretty sure the nukes would stay with the 49 states. "Leaving" would be just that, they would have to leave some things behind.

In this case, the 49 states "stay" so they get all the "kids" or nukes as it may be.

Now as for Hollywood, which side gets Fabio and which side gets Ahrnold? That is anyones guess.

I dunno. When the USSR split, Ukraine had a lot of nukes. There was a good portion of the government that wanted to keep them. Eventually, they were either returned, or disassembled, I can’t remember.

[Gman.45]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I dunno. When the USSR split, Ukraine had a lot of nukes. There was a good portion of the government that wanted to keep them. Eventually, they were either returned, or disassembled, I can’t remember.

They were demobilized, along with those belonging to many other former Soviet states, based on promises made by the USA (and NATO to a smaller extent), to stand in their defense should Russia, or anyone else, threaten them, sovereignty or otherwise. Obama did a great job honoring those promises when Russia took the Crimea and pushed their little green men into the Ukraine. This isn't opinion, lots of intel out there regarding this, but it was long ago, and far out of the public memory, you're one of the few I've read who actually remembers anything about it at all. Except for the Ukrainians and those not on the Russian side of the Crimean "annexation". Budapest memorandum on security assurances is a good place to start.

Cut paste of the first bit of that -

The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances refers to three identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994, providing security assurances by its signatories relating to Belarus's, Kazakhstan's and Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.[1]

The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan.

As a result, between 1994 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. Before that, Ukraine had the world's third largest nuclear weapons stockpile

Regarding California leaving the United States - there are many conservative counties in California that want to leave CALIFORNIA, not just Californians that want to leave the USA.

[95EagleAWD]

Yeah. I feel like the world was very different when the USSR split, and those promises were made at a time when war was still considered likely. The late ‘80s were bananas; we were ready to go in Europe. With exercises like Able Archer and all that... 1988-89 was probably way closer to WWIII than a lot of people realize.

[Gman.45]

I grew up for a time on Canadian forces bases in (West) Germany, ready for the Soviets to come pushing through the Fulda gap and mow over us all.

Joke - What did one Russian tank general say to another in Paris? "By the way, who won the air war". Heh, that was before Desert Storm 1 in 1991, which disproved that notion pretty quickly. Not that Allied ground forces performed poorly what with the 100 hour ground victory.

It was a bonkers times, just looking up the number of active fighter squadrons in NATO and the numbers of aircraft compared to now is insane, it was 10x as many back then as now, or more. America had a 500 ship navy, combat vessels or ships in direct support of them, double what it is now pretty much. Then when you look at the Soviet numbers...insane, the number of tank and mech divisions they had ready to go in East Germany alone was larger than the entire US ground forces that even exist today globally, so far as how they are organized now in Brigade combat teams, by far, in total. The number of Soviet submarines ready to pour into the Atlantic and cut off NATO reinforcements by sea was between well over 100 modern nuclear, guided missile, and conventional attack subs, close to 140 depending on how you counted them. Nuts.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[95EagleAWD]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I was reading that they still have 3 active nuclear weapons research sites in California, which is pretty much all of them for the US

They lack the delivery system though. Surface fleet isn’t wired for nukes any more. Neither are the aircraft that deploy on carriers. That’s not cheap or easy to change.

[ZenOps]

Someone has already figured out a heatmap of where national guard should be placed, and which cities are likely to have fighting - if it starts going south. Completely theoretical of course:

https://www.scpr.org/news/2017/07/12...e-extra-topic/