Also, California already has a militia. We just call it the "National Guard" these days.
California would take a very significant chunk of the US military with it if it left the union, and there are native Californians (who, if they backed California, could cause many problems) in key positions throughout the rest of the military as well.
Form a militia? That's ridiculous. California would be a global military power right out the gate, and a nuclear one at that.
Perhaps, but remember militaries train discipline and chain of command for a reason.
> a very significant number of military bases (packed full of military weapons and equipment) are in California > California would be a global military power right out the gate, and a nuclear one at that.
If there were a serious rebellion, those would be the first targets. Thousands--even tens of thousands--of lost military and civilian lives would be a small price to pay in the US govt's eyes than to let a new nuclear power spring up on its doorstep.
Indeed, and that's why its so significant that Californians make up such a large portion of the military. They bring that modern world class military training with them. Without that body of already experienced and trained people, a real military would be essentially impossible for years, even decades.
> If there were a serious rebellion, those would be the first targets. Thousands--even tens of thousands--of lost military and civilian lives would be a small price to pay in the US govt's eyes than to let a new nuclear power spring up on its doorstep.
If it actually reached that point, Californians would probably be just as ready for that.
Regardless, though, my point was that it's not so cut and dried as was suggested. The scenario would not be the full might of the US military against defenseless California, it would in essence be a gutted US military in total disarray against a cobbled together smaller portion of the US military.
That sounds reasonable.
I don't see many, or any significant amount going rogue and having a mutiny to please the desires of elites in California they probably have little in common with. It's not like the military is made up of mostly elite-college educated graduates who argue over what makes a good grind for poured over coffee at what temperature and humidity, or what are really authentic sessos tacos.
They are also likely not into the virtue signaling game.
In-group loyalty is paramount to conservatives. Family and community first, and all that.
> They are more patriotic on average...
Exactly, and that supports my argument. If California declares independence, then the patriots from California will either side with their homeland, their communities, the places where their families are... or be traitors to their homeland, community, and family.
What do you think is the more likely thing for a conservative to do?
> I don't see many, or any significant amount going rogue...
If it reached the point where California declared independence, it would be those who sided with the US who were the ones "going rouge".
You are completely ignoring, most importantly, the issue of family. A service member from California almost certainly has their family in California. Your suggestion is that a significant majority of service members would side against their own family. That is what siding with the federal government in the even of California declaring independence would mean. Does that really seem likely to you? That they would side against their own family and home? Especially for a group that tends towards being conservative?
Think about it.
People in the armed forces are US military, not CA military, so going rogue would be the ones going against the US. The logic is easy to follow.
And if you think the US military would simply allow "New California" to take its weapons and facilities, then I have a bridge to sell you.
If a bunch of native Californian generals and colonels tried to commandeer a portion of the US military in support of some Californian revolution, you had better believe that would be seen as an act of war.
New England and some Midwestern states would fight it tooth and nail as it would leave them, culturally and politically, with substantially diminished power.
America was always an uneasy balance between the North's industrial and merchant ethos and the Southern plantation culture that emphasizes fixed social identity. The problem is that as income inequality, immobility, and non-European immigration has grown, the Southern plantation culture is predominating. It's even infected the more progressive Northern culture by emphasizing identity politics.
Race doesn't "exist", but racism exists, and it's easier to conceptualize and identify racism by classifying people according to "race", such that both perpetrators and victims will naturally self-classify. Likewise, as overt prejudice against various groups has moved into the public sphere in a way that permits it to be challenged, self-classification has grown stronger. Identity politics has always existed, but in Northern political culture it was much less consequential and more fluid. Change came fast and there was less time for pathological patterns to set in. In plantation culture social identity is more fundamental to how power is structured, brokered, and perceived; and obsession with avoiding change means pathological patterns are more likely to set in. This is why, despite racism towards blacks being alive and well in the North, Northerners have historically be more accommodating to power sharing; whereas in the Deep South despite blacks nearing 40% in some states they're still grossly disenfranchised politically, not just economically.
This election is further proof that Southern political culture is spreading like a virus. In most of the U.S. identity is used to exclude and antagonize; in California identity is still largely an inclusive concept (i.e. diversity is still largely seen as an empowering phenomenon, even by poor whites, or at worst a neutral phenomenon). I'd rather not wait to see California go the way of much of the rest of the country.
I grew up in the Deep South, and have lived and worked in the Mid-Atlantic, New England, and Chicagoland. I'd be happy to see California secede (with my family along with it), especially if both Oregon and Washington came along for the ride given the strong economic, legal, and political similarities. Though, that's even more unlikely than California seceding alone. My only hesitation would be leaving behind some other Northern states. The South and rural areas would be almost universally ecstatic to see California go, at least in the abstract. (Some rural white Californians notwithstanding.)
I'm also not oblivious to the fact that the current movement, such as it is, is a peculiarly techie phenomenon and a product of a particular tech-focused worldview I do not share despite my career. But I've thought for years that a California secession would make a ton of sense politically and culturally. The first time I came out here over 15 years ago it felt like a different country; it still feels that way.