Broken United States Setting

>due to the sub bases around Seattle

This presumes that you'd get your hands on them.

>Also the passes from Cali into Oregon are tiny.

Any serious troop movement would be over the sea anyway. If hypothetical Cascadia gets unlimited access to the sub bases of Washington, then California logically should get the naval assets in or based out of San Diego, which includes a sizable portion of the US Pacific fleet.

sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-list-san-diego-based-warships-2011sep11-htmlstory.html

Plus as mentioned I also see Hawaii more easily going with California than Cascadia, so that also gives California the naval assets of Pearl Harbor as well.

Furthermore, California is nuclear-armed as well: Naval Air Station North Island, in San Diego. In fact, half of the Navy's stock of nuclear-armed Tomahawk missiles are stored there. So at best you're, what, willing to go MAD over California wanting to buy water from you guys? Out of what? Spite?

>3.5 times the population means nothing if that population isn't armed and willing to fight user.

California is hardly unarmed. There were around 1 million gun sales there in 2016 alone.

> the conservative population northern Californians would secede and join them in a heartbeat.

Why? Neither Oregon nor Washington are conservative in the slightest. Californian conservatives are an anomaly in a sea of liberalism.

That's a California that has the support of the Federal government and doesn't need to take steps to ensure by itself an uninterrupted flow of water for posterity. Were I Governor of California, I'd want to shore up imports.

Mind, I'd be willing to pay for it, I would hardly launch an invasion right off the bat. But an invasion wouldn't be off the table entirely, either, if I thought that other nations were trying to fleece California.

>Ohio teaming up with Myshitcan and New York.

Never. We are Midwestern warriors and not liberal filthholes.

ITT: Califags desperately pretending they wouldn't become part of Mexico and would remain relevant if they seceded and/or the Union collapsed.

It's not about liberalism verses conservatism, it's about what's objectively best for your state. If Ohio isn't part of some kind of Great Lakes Union, what will it be part of, and will it benefit more from being part of that?

Get fucked Ohioan, Michigan uber alles, Toledo War never forget

>New York and New Jersey to join up, which I can't think of a good reason why they wouldn't.

Maybe differing cultures and political views between the city folk and the suburbanites/rural between East and West NJ? Also NY outside of NYC is different, very much so that they'd split of and join Vermont/Pennsylvania if they could.

I can't conceive of why California would want to be part of Mexico. There's no benefit to it. It would only drag the economy down.

California has far more to gain as an independent nation. Again, it is already the 7th-largest economy in the world by itself. Even if it took a hit from going independent, which I'm certain it would, it would still end up being the strongest single state in every field out of any Disunited States scenario.

Hell, just its naval assets alone would leave it as a force to be reckoned with (assuming each state gets to keep whatever military assets are in or based out of that state). As of October 2015, San Diego alone has 7 cruisers, 15 destroyers, 12 amphibious assault ships, 4 littoral combat ships, 3 mine counter measures, 5 support ships, and 1 little dinky cutter to impress the kids with.

There's also a trio of aircraft carriers based out of Californian ports: Carl Vinson (CVN-70), Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71), and Ronald Reagan (CVN-76). These three alone would make California have the second-largest commissioned aircraft carrier fleet in the world, behind France and Japan (tied for 1st at 4 apiece).

Though I will grant that Washington, and thereby Cascadia, would have two of their own: Nimitz (CVN-68) and John C. Stennis (CVN-74).

For the curious, Virginia would have 5, making Virginia the preeminent aircraft carrier power in the world: Deight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69), Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72), George Washington (CVN-73), Harry S. Truman (CVN-75), and George H.W. Bush (CVN-77)

Source, for the curious: gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html

Were would Cali get the steel or ship yards for these boats. Also, have you seen the PNW coast. It's rocky as hell, with just a few open beaches and a mountain range to cross. The only thing Cali has a surplus of is people. They have zero manufacture infrastructure. Cali has very, very little to work with.

Also why would Hawaii ever want to join Cali, it would have zero food/resources to offer in trade,

After the election I do feel these kind of balkanized America scenarios don't pay enough attention to the rural urban division. I'd be interested in a setting with high population citysates desperately trying to hold down enough territory to feed themselves while fighting each other and pacify rebellious farmers

Texas would be by far the strongest single state.
Texas is actually very self sufficient in terms of economy and infrastructure.

>The only thing Cali has a surplus of is people.

Wrong. It also has a surplus of money. And when you have a lot of money and a lot of people, it's pretty easy to get your hands on anything else you need by simply buying the resources and setting up trade deals. After all, America as a whole has a rather lackluster industrial capacity these days and yet it remains, if not necessarily an unchallenged superpower, then still the most powerful single nation on Earth. California in a disunited states scenario would possess exactly that in microcosm form.

>Were would Cali get the steel or ship yards for these boats

I'm naming what's already there, not what they could build. If Washington (and thereby Cascadia) gets the nukes in the sub bases kept in Seattle, then there's no logical reason why California shouldn't get the naval assets that are in San Diego, which includes about half of the Navy's nuclear-tipped tomahawk missiles.

Also don't forget that, excluding federal offshore areas, California is ranked third in the US for oil production, producing 200 million barrels in 2014. I'll grant that this doesn't hold a candle to Texas or Oklahoma, but how much oil does Cascadia have to its name?

Congratulations you have plains for a few months before your parts run out and you need to start mothballing.

Being self-sufficient doesn't necessarily translate into real power. Again, America as a whole is not even remotely capable of autarky at the moment, and yet it is the single-strongest contender for "most powerful country on Earth".

What's stopping California from buying replacement parts until such time as it can set up its own internal industries?

My entire orginal post was on the fact that even if the Union dissolved, autarky does not benefit most states. Only Texas and California have real shots at going things alone, but even they would need to at least set up various trade deals with other former States.

Self sufficiency means the translation to single state hood becomes easier and gives them a better chance of their economy coming out intact.
California has a bigger economy, but a huge dependence on existing systems. The transition could crush it.

>>Also don't forget that, excluding federal offshore areas, California is ranked third in the US for oil production, producing 200 million barrels in 2014. I'll grant that this doesn't hold a candle to Texas or Oklahoma, but how much oil does Cascadia have to its name?

By itself, not much, but with easy access to trade with both Canada and Alaska, that's not going to be a major issue. Having both, food, and things like steal and aluminum to trade. Not to mention finished goods like planes and computer chips.

What exactly can Cali make?

That depends a bit on how the disunity happens: some alien space bat snaps his fingers, or is there, say, a year of gradual dissolution?

>What exactly can Cali make?
Infinite mexican slave labor.

Here's a question:

What states would change their governmental structures without federal oversight? And what changes would they make?

Cartels invade, and outside of a few well defended military areas, you've got Afghanistan in SoCal.

Very little outside of tax related things and substitutes for roles that the federal govt had.

Let's just say that the federal constitution is revoked, and the federal government crumbles as a result. The states hold on to the concept of a unified country for a while, but since they have no oversight they drift apart (some faster than others). Tensions brew over history and politics, and soon the former U.S. is on the brink of war.

I understand that non-californian americans hate california, but it's interesting that they refuse to accept that they are obviously the most relevant state today.

Being allied with those cucks is not objectively best for us.

>It's not about liberal and conservative

You're right, it's about nationalist and globalist.

Yes. Remember your place.

That isn't New York.

Because a huge chunk of its southern populace is illegal Mexicans.

>What exactly can Cali make?

Its agriculture economy generates twice as much revenue as the next-largest state's revenue, for one. Most of that is in dairy and almonds, which don't feed its people but do generate wealth.

It products are exported to over 200 countries, generating $163.6 billion in 2016, and accounting for 11 percent of the US' total export revenue.

Computers and electronics are the state's top export at about 26% of the total. It's the second-largest tech exporter after Texas. It does, in fact, produce manufactured commodities like transportation equipment and machinery.

Finding precise details is a bit tricky with just a Google search. For the record, I'm not even from California, I live in Massachusetts. I'm just realistic about my own state's abilities relative to that of California.

>most relevant state
That's like calling the loudest person in the room the most important person. Just because you advertise yourself as the most relevant state doesn't make it so.

New York is important, but it's still just a city.
Also if the US suddenly fragmented, NY would retain most of its financial importance, but the UN would no longer have much of a reason to even stay there, besides tradition.

>Californian agricultural production is the largest of any single state, in fact more than twice the size of any other state
>California is the leading dairy state
>builds the most computers and computer parts of any state, not to mention being a technological hub
>had massive amounts of aerospace, automotive and industrial machinery manufacturers in the previous few decades
>third largest American oil producer

>produces literal mountains of money via Hollywood, Silicon Valley, tourism, etc

Honestly, what else does it need?

This. Gas ohio.

Water

And yet they are.

And can we presume that each state gets to keep whatever Federal assets are in or based out of that state? I.e., ships and so on?

If it's that rapid, California would swiftly steamroll its way through Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and New Mexico in order to establish a West Coast union. Most likely the other states would buckle without a fight seeing as they're facing what is, in the moment, the greatest power in the region.

>Because a huge chunk of its southern populace is illegal Mexicans.

Best guess is that there are perhaps 2,350,000 illegal immigrants in California.

pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/

Even if we assume that that site is catastrophically wrong and there are in fact three times that many - so 7,050,000 - that would still mean that illegals account for only about 15% of the total Californian population (of 45,850,000, assuming 38.8 million legal residents and 7.05 million illegals which, again, would be three times the actual estimate and would require all our estimates to be catastrophically wrong). That's not nearly enough to force California to join Mexico.

However, this raises the question: if these people illegal left Mexico to live in California, why, having had California become its own nation, would that want to join back up with Mexico? Wouldn't they rather be part of the new nation, which would in all likelihood simply legalize their presence in order to shore up its numbers (and, more importantly, be able to collect taxes from them)?

Basically you're wrong on two fronts. You're wrong on the number of illegals in California, and you're wrong on the logic of what that would mean for independent California.

>joint Canadian-Californian task force pacifies pro-Cascadian rebels in British Columbia
>regular water convoys travel from Colorado Mad Max-style or massive water pipelines

>Texas would be by far the strongest single state.
Why must Tejasfags believe this? New York is more more powerful.

Because texas is borderline independent as it is. Almost nothing would change in the day to day workings of the state if everything fell apart.
New York would have to do massive restructuring.

This, people forget that while Texas isn't the largest economy of the US, it is based on actual things and that it is independent

Texas also has one of the worst infrastructures of all the states.

>Almost nothing would change in the day to day workings of the state if everything fell apart.

A modern sovereign nation requires more, not less, government than a state would, so Texas would be bogged down by a transition just as much as anyone else. Consider all the new departments it would need to monitor things like foreign affairs, aviation and nuclear regulation. And then there are all the expenses Washington used to take care of, like maintaining interstate highways, inspecting meat and checking passports.

Public education is another good example. In 2011, the Texas state Legislature slashed billions of dollars from school systems at a time when Texas was already 43rd among the states in per pupil spending and dead last in the number of adults who completed high school.

Also I'd love to know how they'll deal with the fact that, regardless of what happens, simple trends mean that in a generation or two Texas is going to be majority Hispanic.

How do you say "apartheid" in Tejano?

Don't forget oil and natural gas. California still has significant reserves both on and off shore and could probably increase production if they needed to

Not to mention if the situation in the USA degenerates to the point of a dissolution, it would affect greatly immigration. Not everyone would stay, much less would enter.
It would also cause emigration to some extend all over the country I guess.

Oh, you mean the Toledo war that we won?

OHIOANS GET OUT
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>People's Collective
>not in Commiefornia

That map is for America in 1938, after a breakup in 1931 or so which was caused by Prohibition NOT passing in 1919, resulting in a sharp division between "wet" and "dry" states that escalated to the establishment of checkpoints at state borders to prevent alcohol smuggling an the raising of state militias to either attack moonshiners, or protect them, as the case may be by state. There was also a worse Spanish Flu epidemic after the Great War.

user, France only has one proper carrier like those you list. Japan has none. The rest are helicopter carriers.

Clueless douchebags like you are why these threads always suck.

The new nations of a disunited United States WILL NOT FOLLOW existing state borders and your formulaic idiocy concerning New England is a good example of this.

New England will not unite on some neat package. Western Connecticut will be part of New York, just as it now is socially and economically. The northern tier of New England will not unite with Massachusets has hating Massholes is about the one thing ALL of New England has in common.

Other posters have already schooled you on your idiocy concerning the West Coast. If given the chance California wouldn't stay one state let along Oregon and Washington uniting with it.

If you're seriously interested in examining the question, rather than just making shit up, get a geological map of the region, read the book "The Nine Nations of North America", and try thinking for a change.

Isn't this just Shattered Union?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shattered_Union
tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/VideoGame/ShatteredUnion

here is an old one from a thread a long time ago

I dont have the completed one saved, hopefully someone still has it.

Oh, is that why Clinton won the election, user?

>Country falling apart
>Washington and Oregon perfectly fine

So, nothing has changed?

Dude, this. Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont would not join with Massholes unless their lives depended on it..and then it would still require holding their nose.

I remember vaguely that in the completed version they were part of a communist country based in san francisco

I really wish i had it saved

This is the last one I have saved. Not sure if it was the last one or I just stopped saving them after this one.

All we need is for all the californians to stop moving up here and driving the fucking rent up

I mean, I can hardly blame them. Everyone is moving up here. Brother of mine is in real estate in the Seattle area and he's killing himself for not learning Chinese.

Those mother fuckers will pay in CASH without even seeing the house. Trusting you to find what they need and tell them you found something for them.

I know, and it sucks ass for everyone else trying to live here. Pretty likely I will be renting till the end of days at this point unless I move waaaaay the fuck out.

>half of the Navy's stock of nuclear-armed Tomahawk missiles are stored there.

Half of zero is zero.

>“All W80-0 warheads in the stockpile have been dismantled.”
fas.org/blogs/security/2013/03/tomahawk/

>Independent capable tier: Ports, money, survivable nuclear weapons.
Washington
Georgia

>Disperse the nukes tier: Ports, money, limited or non-survivable nuclear capability.
Texas
California

>Good tier: Something important but lacks critical area
New York (Port, money, no nukes)
Montana (ICBMs, no ports)
North Dakota (ICBMs, no ports)
Wyoming (ICBMs, no ports)
Louisiana (Port, no nukes)
Virginia (Port, no nukes)
Hawaii (Pacific Fleet, island, small economy)

>Meh tier: Incapable of leading local power bloc due to lack of critical resources.
Everyone else

They way I see it the most important factors are firstly the ability to deter other states from attacking,given that many have nuclear weapons means having a survivable second strike nuclear capability. Second international trade is a must, both for economic reasons as well as importing arms, this means large deep water ports. Lastly is having money to run a government.

I hate this idea

do people forget that California makes 1/2 of the produce the rest of the country eats?

What about racial/ethnic differences? Would they play a role?

>inb4 /pol/

New England regroups quick because they're all small.

East coast has access to aid from Europe.

New England merges with Old England in a surprise move to form Regular England.

>hating Massholes is about the one thing ALL of New England has in common
Not only that but maine alone actually has several strong cultural divisions that few outsiders realize.
The coasts and sub-divide of year-round and seasonals, the canadian-influenced north, the northwest wilderness.

Hahahahaha, no.
Being absorbed by canada would be more realistic.

It's not that in particular, they just forget about everything in favor of circlejerking about hurrrrr commiefornia

While that is true cali also is desperately in need of water from literally every place around it. I could also seeing cali break in half if the us went into swperate mini countries, the folks in the cities are a complete 180 from thouse outside the city.

thats the trade off

Great soil and climate but shit water availability

(also we get a large portion of our water from northern California)

Compare that to the breadbasket of america that's blessed with water availability through the aquifer.
We simply couldn't sustain the current state of things without that aquifier and we're using it up at a rather frightening rate.

No they wouldn't, because this is all fantasy. It's make believe. It's for fun.
Or not. You know, historically, most every subject that could afford to fled his home country to other countries that had greater human rights established? Nobody's going to fight or rally in the name of "WE NEED TO BAN CIVIL LIBERTIES AND RAISE TAXES". The hollywood jews might hire a lot of mercenaries(actors), but as soon as the money dries out nobody's going to fight for whatever hellhole california becomes in the future except for the cartels.

I don't understand all this hatred for Cali. Yeah I get it, hurr durr look at all them resources. But, I just want to see what each state brings to the table. I mean, all I see in this thread is that California, Texas, Florida, and Hawaii would be okay (maybe Alaska, and a handful of others). Other states need to unify into a single state or Gather their resources together to stay stable. But, People keep posting about how other states suck, and fuck these liberal fucks. But, people whom I assume will take command of the now independent state (already governing official) understand for a state of government to work they will usually go off good history with other states. regardless of the plebeian level of animosity towards rival areas. And the idea of well my part of the state would revolt, and join with another state is ludicrous. The first thing most states (if not all) will do is, consolidate its power (militarily or civilian), and keep what borders they had before the federal government collapsed.

>implying shooting shit about a hypothetical horrific Yugoslavia-like ethnic strife isn't fun

You assume that the money will dry-up quickly. A geographical large state, with a ton of business built around manufacturing (technology and military), farm land that can/may be converted to feed the citizens, man power of people who are essentially now all legal citizens of a new country, and constant military power (assuming it keeps when it has already). People understand that they have to pay taxes in order to keep a government running.You are acting like California has terrible civil liberties, and that our taxes are unplayable. But, when it comes down to our civil liberties, besides harsh gun control, and big tax on smoking, California isn't a restrictive as must people think.

Depends on what time point where talking about, if its modern day, the south east forms a union/confederacy with florida and georgia leading
The north east will be a strang place but will probably be taken over by new york
The west coast is lost to californa
The south west is the home of the lone star republic
I don't know enough about the nirth west and mid west to say anything
Alaska is being faught over by russains and chinese
Hawii starts to becom a naval super power

>the south east forms a [...] confederacy
I don't think the black population would like that

what is the % of blacks (or just non-whites) to whites. I would imagine the % of whites is still dominate in the south-east due to the migration up north around the time of jim-crow laws and the Harlem renaissance. I mean I guess it's possible if they went more to feudalism with more of a indentured servant route, than that of slavery. Meaning the poorer class is subjected to work.

>The new nations of a disunited United States WILL NOT FOLLOW existing state borders

They will at least initially, given the idea is that the union dissolves and the states simply become sovereign nations with preexisting boundaries.

Now, those borders might change over time, but then again in some cases they might not. Regardless, to my knowledge the scenario doesn't involve the US just completely dissolving and then some people redrawing borders. It presumes that the fifty states as they are now become fifty sovereign countries, which creates its own problems.

>New England will not unite on some neat package.

Yeah it would, for a number of economic, political, and cultural reasons, at least after the immediate dissolution.

For example,

>Western Connecticut will be part of New York

Would Hartford allow that? Territorial integrity is important to a nation, and I don't see why Connecticut would want to lose such a significant portion of its territory to New York.

>get a geological map of the region

You meant geographical. And geographical boundaries do not necessarily correlate to national boundaries. Or do you think there's a perfectly straight river or mountain range running between the US-Canadian border? Because there isn't. More to the point, most of the state boundaries along the East Coast are already the result of using natural boundaries to create the states, hence why the East Coast tends to have fewer straight lines compared to the rest of the country.

>Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont would not join with Massholes unless their lives depended on it

Their people would grumble a little, but I'm reasonably certain that their state governments would understand that the benefits significantly outweigh the drawbacks. Particularly since I don't see any particular reason why New York and New Jersey wouldn't be part of any kind of "Greater East Coast" nation, removing 9/10ths of the issue.

As three addendums, by the way, since I ran out of space in the last post.

1) I have read "The Nine Nations of North America". It was, in fact, in my mind when I made my initial post.

2) Said book is outdated; it was published in 1981 and a lot has changed since then.

3) "The Nine Nations of North America" itself proposed that the Northeast Coast in general and New England in particular have strong economic, political, and cultural ties. It even named the "nation" New England, and furthermore even added New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador to the "nation".

Perhaps YOU need to read that book, not me.

>what is the % of blacks (or just non-whites) to whites.

Assuming "south east" to mean South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida, it's about 68% white and 29% black, with the remaining 3% being made up of various other races. A good portion of that is Florida dragging down the average, however, as it has a comparatively small black population (about 16%) compared to the rest. Without Florida, it's more like 64% white and 31% black.

Note that "hispanic" is not, for US census purposes, a distinct race in and of itself, but rather a qualifier applied to other races. There are hispanic white people, hispanic black people, hispanic asians, and so on. There's no such thing as just a "hispanic".

29-31% is a lot. It's almost a third (!) of the population. You can't dismiss a demo as large as that

Well, they try anyway.

For the record, incidentally, the South as a whole has always had demographics roughly like that. They were roughly the same back during the Civil War, for example, even if not on a state-by-state basis, then certainly for the Confederacy taken as a whole.

Even with Jim Crow laws and so on, the simple fact is that most black people either a) couldn't afford to move, b) didn't want to leave their home, for all that it sucked, or c) both.

Any modern southern nation would probably not call itself "the confederacy", even if it did form a political confederation in the vein of the European Union.

California and the Northeast Coast, meanwhile, would probably form tighter federal governments. It's what we like.

They'd have to get to New Mexico before the Republic of Texas. Best case they form a treaty and split it down the middle.

>The two Dakotas join into one state and trade all their oil to bigger states in exchange for food and materials.
That's cute.

Where do you think your bread comes from?

>No true map of the USA's future
Step up

Man I know I hate massholes but at least they are still northerners, I would side with them over anyone else.

please just nuke Florida.
I hate this place

Utah and part of Idaho would become the Mormon Theocracy of Deseret, and a few warlords and marauder gang leaders might crown themselves kings, but apart from that.